2024 CLC 268
NASIR ABBAS BHATTI vs ABID HUSSAIN
Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Equity and fairness in the contract---Remaining sale consideration, non-deposit of---Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/vendee---Scope---Discretionary powers of the Court---Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed due to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration and appeal preferred there-against was also dismissed---Contention of the petitioner was that since the respondents/ defendants had disputed the execution of agreement to sell in question, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the remaining sale consideration---Validity---Trial Court, after recording oral evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner, in order to evaluate his bona fide and readiness, directed him to deposit the remaining sale consideration but he, despite availing two opportunities, failed to comply with the said order---There are many instances in which though there is nothing that actually amounts to fraud, nevertheless there is a want of equity and fairness in the contract which are essential in order that the Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in specific performance---In judging the fairness of a contract the Court looks not merely on the terms of the contract but all the surrounding circumstances---Position that emerged in the present case was that specific performance of an agreement executed in the year 2013 for a consideration of a Rs.8,000,000/- was being sought only after paying an amount of Rs.400,000/- as earnest money when the value of the property-in-dispute had multiplied exponentially, as claimed by the respondents while value of the local currency had remarkably depreciated, and that too despite failure of the petitioner to deposit the remaining sale consideration on order passed by the Trial Court---Conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff manifestly showed non-seriousness and unwillingness on his part---Such exercise of jurisdiction might lead to miscarriage of justice and unfair advantage to the petitioner who, by merely paying a meager amount, had bound down the respondents for a number of years---Trial Court's order clearly specified that in case of failure to deposit the balance sale price, suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff for non-depositing of remaining consideration--
0 Comments