Second Appeal must strictly be confined to Legal Errors and cannot serve as a Factual Reassessment Forum --- Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad 22-03-2025: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside the High Court’s decision in [Civil Appeal No. 99-K/2022], reinstating the First Appellate Court’s judgment that dismissed a suit for specific performance. The case, involving a dispute over the enforcement of an agreement for four plots, clarifies the narrow scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and reaffirms that specific performance is a discretionary relief subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
The legal dispute arose when Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement against Appellants. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit, granting specific performance for three out of four plots. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the Respondent failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as he did not deposit the balance amount on time. Aggrieved by this, the Respondent filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, which the High Court allowed, reinstating the Trial Court’s order.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, analyzed whether the High Court’s interference in Second Appeal was justified. The Court highlighted the limited grounds for Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, which only allows intervention in cases involving:
- A decision contrary to law or custom having the force of law.
- Failure to determine a material issue.
- A substantial procedural defect affecting the outcome.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual findings, which is not permissible in Second Appeal. The judgment reaffirmed the discretionary nature of specific performance, holding that Courts cannot modify contract terms to create equity where no legal basis exists.
Citing (2001 SCMR 1641) (District Council Sialkot Vs. Nazir Ahmed Khan) and (1977 SCMR 280) (Mir Abdullah Vs. Muhammad Ali), the Supreme Court of Pakistan reiterated that Second Appeal must strictly be confined to legal errors and cannot serve as a factual reassessment forum. It concluded that the First Appellate Court had correctly exercised its discretion, and the High Court’s decision was legally flawed.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the First Appellate Court’s ruling. This means that the Respondent’s suit for specific performance stands dismissed, reinforcing that judicial discretion must be exercised within statutory limits.
Powered by Froala Editor
