ORDER ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---The appellant filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction as according to him, the respondents/ defendants are the owners of property measuring 5 acres situated in Mauza Dham Miani Tehsil and District Jhang and that they executed an agreement to sell the property on 16-12-2010, for a consideration of Rs.46 lacs and that they received an amount of Rs.8 lacs as an earnest money. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. With a prayer to restrain the defendants from alienating the land. The suit as well as application were contested by the defendants and vide order dated 19-5-2011, the same was accepted as the counsel for the defendants/respondents made a statement on behalf of the defendants that they had no objection if the application is accepted subject to the deposit of the remaining sale price of Rs.38 lacs by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the appellant/plaintiff has come before this Court for its modification to the extent of imposition of the condition of the deposit of Rs.38 lacs.
2. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant are that while passing the impugned order, directing the appellant/ plaintiff to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.38 lacs, the civil court should have decreed the suit as there remained nothing to be determined. It is submitted that the condition of deposit of the remaining amount of Rs.38 lacs should t!Ot have been imposed and to that extent the impugned order be modified.
3. Arguments heard.
4. The appellant claims a decree for specific performance of contract and has made a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents/defendants to restrain them from alienating the suit property. The application was not opposed by the counsel for the defendants and thus the same was accepted in the presence of his counsel. The condition was imposed lawfully in accordance with Rule 2 of Order XXXIX C.P.C. It has been held in Shama Enterprises Private Limited v. Malik Ghulam Sarwar and others (1989 M LD 21) as under:-- "In a suit for specific performance, when appellant seeks an injunction in respect of the suit property, the Court normally orders the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration in the Court in order to see whether factually the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the sale agreement in respect of which the specific performance is sought."
I respectfully agree with the aforementioned just and fair rule of law and hold that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement if an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1, C.P.C. Is filed for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, the grant of injunction must be subject to the term as to the deposit of the sale consideration in the court. The same shall show bona fide of the plaintiff. It shall also be a satisfaction to the defendants that the plaintiff is litigating bonafidely. In view of the above, it is held that the civil court did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order of imposing condition of deposit of remaining amount of the sale consideration. This petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine..