Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar in his judgment has decided the issue concerning legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied”. The issue is regarding 25 years old civil revision which suffered with inordinate delays, and Honourable Justice administered complete justice in exemplary manner in Regular Appeal No. 214 of 1991.
1. The applicant through this revision has challenged the concurrent findings against him whereby the courts below have refused to grant him relief of specific performance of a contract allegedly executed on 02.9.1965 between the applicant and the respondent. On or about 8.2.1979 Plaintiff filed first class suit in the court of District Judge, Thatta which was registered as Suit No.14 of 1979. Then on creation of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Thatta, the said suit was transferred and it was registered as Suit No.27/1980, which was again renumbered as Suit No.46/1988 before it was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.9.1990. The applicant has preferred civil appal against dismissal of his suit bearing Civil Appeal No.78/1990 which was also dismissed on 30.5.1991. Thereafter he filed the present civil revision No.214/1991 which is pending since 9.9.1991.
2. Briefly stated, the applicant in his plaint has pleaded that he entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.9.1965 with the respondent through the father of respondent namely M.A Hameed Khan in respect of immovable property bearing custodian No.44 admeasuring 7875 sq.ft Gharo, Taluka Mipur Sakro, District Thatta, Sindh (hereinafter the suit property). The total sale price was agreed to be Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were paid in advance to the father of the respondent and even physical possession of the suit plot was delivered by respondent’s father to the applicant. The applicant subsequently constructed six shops in the suit property by spending huge amount.
The suit property was held by the respondent under Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) and sale deed was to be executed on issuance of Permanent Transfer Document (PTD) which according to the applicant was issued by Settlement department by order No.617 dated 28.6.1978. But when the applicant offered Rs.10,000/-, balance sale consideration and requested for the execution of sale deed, it was turned down and therefore, he filed suit for specific performance. The respondent on service filed written statement through attorney and denied execution of the sale agreement and the other averments of the plaint. It was specifically denied that respondent’s father as attorney has executed any sale agreement or received part payment of sale consideration. It was further averred that the applicant has committed fraud and forgery by taking the advantage of fact that father of the Defendant had died and the Defendant and his family were out of Pakistan since 1959. The respondent further averred in his written statement that the applicant and other occupants in the suit premises are tenant and they were not paying rent to the respondent. The applicant is illegally collecting rent from others despite objection raised by the attorney. Thus they are liable to be ejected and suit be dismissed.
Further information regarding old and pending litigation suffered with inordinate delays can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.