.
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J. --- This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 20.07.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1979 passed by the Civil Jude, Lahore whereby the suit for Specific Performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1 Mussarrat Khan entered into an agreement to sell with Surayya Nasreen pertaining to a plot of land measuring 2 kanals at the rate of Rs. 38,000/-per kanal. Rs. 12,000/- was paid as token money and balance was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar. It was stipulated in the agreement that sale-deed shall be executed within four months. However, it was also stated that a. There was a clog on the title of respondent No. 1, therefore, extensions could be granted for completing title. Two extensions were granted. On completion of title, the plaintiff/appellant served a notice upon defendant No. 1 to execute sale- deed. On refusal, a suit for Specific Performance was filed with an alternate prayer stating that in case Specific Performance cannot be enforced, the plaintiff/appellant be awarded Rs. 24,000/- as compensation. The suit was contested, of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. After contest, the suit was dismissed, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal which after contest, was also dismissed, hence the present petition.
3. L.Rs. Of Respondent No. 1 were proceeded against ex parte on 07.12.2004, therefore he is not represented.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the judgement of the lower Appellate Court and the Trial Court is not in consonance with the spirit of. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, both 'Courts have concurrently, illegally non-suited the appellant, the alternate plea of compensation Rs. 24,000/- could only came into play, if Specific Performance could not be enforced, thus, this was not the main relief, this important aspect was misconstrued concurrently by both Courts below. He relied on the following precedents:---
(i) (2000 M.L.D. 1875) "Abdul Aziz v. Maqsood Ahmad."
(ii) (1995 C.L.C. 43), "Mst. Noor Jehan and others v. Muhammad Rafique and others".
(i.e) (P.L.D. 1999 Lahore 193), "Messrs Pion:er Housing Society (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director, Bank Square, Lahore v. Messrs Baber & Company through Shakir Ali Khan and 2 others."
(iv) (P.L.D. 1968 Lah. 501), "Hakim Ghulam Rasool v. Sh. Imdad Hussan and another."
(v) (P.L.D. 1967 Kar. 158), "Sakinabai and others v. Kurnool Muhammad Bashir."
(vi) (P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 39), "Seth Essabhoy v. Saboor Ahmad."
(vii) (P.L.J. 1998 Lah. 1596), "Ghulam Hussain, etc. v. Muhammad Yousaf, etc." and (2004 Y.L.R. 1882), "Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Shafi and 4 others."
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court.