livelawpk.com - The Specific Performance of an Agreement requires ---

The Specific Performance of an Agreement requires the Subject Property should be clearly defined; Appeal Dismissed on ground of non-existence of Suit Property --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad

3 months
100

The Specific Performance of an Agreement requires the Subject Property should be clearly defined; Appeal Dismissed on ground of non-existence of Suit Property --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad

Islamabad 16-09-2024: In a recent ruling, the Islamabad High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Babar Sattar, dismissed an appeal in [R.F.A No. 314 of 2022] filed by Wajid Mehmood against Muhammad Hanif and others. The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement for a commercial plot, but the Court not only dismissed the case but also ordered criminal proceedings against the appellant for fabricating evidence.

The appellant, Wajid Mehmood, had entered into a sale agreement with Muhammad Hanif on July 24, 2004, to purchase a commercial plot under the Intelligence Bureau Employees Cooperative Housing Society (“IB Society”) membership of the respondent. The appellant claimed that he had paid Rs. 135,000 out of a total Rs. 240,000 agreed upon and that the respondent refused to accept the balance payment and transfer the plot. The suit was filed in 2015, nearly 11 years after the execution of the agreement.

The respondent, Muhammad Hanif, contended that no commercial plot was ever allotted to him, and therefore, the agreement was void. He also denied receiving any sale consideration from the appellant.

The civil Court originally dismissed the appellant’s claim, finding that the property in question did not exist and the sale agreement was void for uncertainty. The appellant appealed the civil Court’s decision to the Islamabad High Court.

In its ruling, the Islamabad High Court confirmed that the property was not clearly identified in the agreement. Referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Miskeen Vs. District Judge Attock (2020 SCMR 406) and Bashir Ahmed Vs. Muhammad Isa (2021 MLD 698), the Court held that Specific Performance of an agreement requires the subject property to be clearly defined, which was not the case in this instance.

Mr. Justice Babar Sattar further noted that the suit was likely time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a three-year period for filing suits for specific performance. The appellant failed to provide evidence of any date when the respondent refused to perform the agreement.

Moreover, the Court found several discrepancies in the evidence presented by the appellant, particularly in proving payment of the sale consideration. The Court observed that the appellant presented two contradictory versions of the sale agreement and failed to provide any documentary evidence, such as bank records, to prove payment.

One of the most serious aspects of the judgment involved the appellant’s fabrication of evidence. The Court found that the appellant had altered key documents, including the sale agreement and a general power of attorney, to falsely support his claim. Witnesses brought forward by the appellant contradicted his statements and revealed that the appellant was not present during key transactions.

The Court held that the appellant had violated Sections 191, 192, and 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which criminalize the fabrication of false evidence in judicial proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat (PLD 2019 SC 527), Mr. Justice Babar Sattar emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system depends on truthful testimony, and deliberate falsehood cannot be tolerated.

As a result of the appellant’s dishonest conduct, the Court referred the case to the District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for perjury and fabricating false evidence. The Court also imposed a penalty of Rs. 200,000 on the appellant, payable to the respondent within 30 days.

This ruling by the Islamabad High Court highlights the importance of truthfulness in judicial proceedings and reaffirms the principle that specific performance cannot be granted when the contract is vague or when essential terms like the subject property and consideration are not clearly defined. Additionally, the case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to punishing those who attempt to manipulate the Court by submitting falsified evidence.

The appellant now faces potential criminal charges for perjury, a reminder that the judicial system cannot function if parties resort to dishonesty in pursuit of their claims.