Procedure for Enforcing Court's Decree for Specific Performance

In Writ Petition No. 13531 of 2018, Razia Begum and others challenged the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue (BOR), Punjab. The order set aside a previous decision by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, and restored the orders dated 28.01.2016 and 25.09.2014 by lower revenue authorities.

Key Issues:

The dispute originates from a suit for specific performance filed by Abdul Majeed, the predecessor of the petitioners, on 24.01.1987. Abdul Majeed sought enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 15.01.1986, wherein Muhammad Rafique (Respondent No. 13) agreed to sell half a portion of a shop. The suit was decreed on 02.06.1998, subject to the payment of the remaining consideration within one month. Failure to comply would result in the suit's dismissal.

Despite the decree, Abdul Majeed did not act for several years. When he eventually pursued execution, the District Collector dismissed his application on 17.01.2012, suggesting he approach the executing court. An execution petition was filed and later withdrawn. Nonetheless, Abdul Majeed managed to incorporate a mutation based on the decree, which was subsequently set aside multiple times.

Court’s Analysis: The court focused on two main issues. The decree for specific performance required the payment of Rs. 10,000 within one month. There was no evidence that Abdul Majeed complied with this condition. The court held that once the stipulated period lapsed, the trial court's jurisdiction ceased, making it functus officio. Only an appellate court could extend the payment period, provided justifiable grounds were present.

Implementation of Decree through Revenue Record: The court clarified that a decree for specific performance does not transfer title by itself. The decree only establishes the right to have the property transferred through a sale deed, which must be executed by the judgment-debtor or the court. The revenue authorities are bound to reflect the decree in the records, but only after a sale deed is executed in accordance with the decree. The proper procedure for enforcing such a decree involves filing an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The Lahore High Court upheld the BOR’s decision, restoring the orders dated 28.01.2016 and 25.09.2014, which had set aside the unauthorized mutations. The court emphasized that execution of a decree for specific performance must follow the proper legal procedures, including the execution of a sale deed, before any changes can be made in the revenue records. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity in the challenged order.

Contact Us:

For expert legal services in matters of property disputes, specific performance, and execution of decrees, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. Our experienced team is ready to provide comprehensive legal support tailored to your needs. Feel free to reach out to us for further assistance or consultation on property law and enforcement of legal decrees.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.