CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Trial Court and judgment/decree dated 11.1.2011 passed by the Appellate Court, whereby application filed by the petitioner for extension of time regarding payment of consideration amount, as well as rent appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that respondent No. 3 Muhammad Ramzan was owner of House No. BX-120/1 situated in new Sadiq Colony, Bahawalpur.
On 24.6.1994 the petitioner allegedly entered into an agreement to sell of the disputed house for a consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- with the attorney/elder brother of respondent No. 3, namely, Hafiz Noor Muhammad and according to same the tenancy remained in existence till the payment of 1/3 of sale price Rs. 5,30,000/- which was allegedly paid in December, 2006 and the tenancy ceased to be in existence and the remaining sale price Rs. 8,70,000/- was to be paid by the present petitioner.
The respondent No. 3 who was living abroad resiled from the said agreement to sell and to pressurize the petitioner, instituted an ejectment petition and through the learned Court below forced the petitioner for compromise in which the sale price was enhanced to Rs. 30,00,000/- and the petitioner accepted the said compromise. The petitioner promised to pay the sale price on 3.1.2011 with the understanding that if the whole sale price could not be arranged till the stipulated date, he would be given time for the part payment of remaining amount. On the said date the petitioner could not arrange the said amount due to December closing and delay in the payment of price of sugarcane. He also moved an application, on 3.1.2011, before the learned Trial Court for the payment of Rs. 8,50,000/- cash and for the extension of time to 20 days for the payment of remaining amount but the said application was rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner filed rent appeal before the Appellate Court which also met with the same fate vide judgment/decree dated 11.1.2011. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order and judgment/decree passed by the Courts below are illegal, against law and facts, ineffective upon the right of the petitioner. That learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of specific performance of contract in the rent matter as no specific separate statement regarding compromise was recorded in the suit. That the circumstances mentioned in the application for extension of time were not considered by both the Courts below which resulted into miscarriage of justice. It has been further stated that under Sections 35 and 12 of Specific Relief Act the Trial Court was under obligation to extend reasonable time.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment "AIR 1983 Supreme Court 428 and PLD 2004 Supreme Court 790".
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that on 8.12.2010 the petitioner with his free consent entered into compromise and got recorded his statement to the effect that he would pay Rs. 30,00,000/- as price of the house in question on or before 3.1.2011, failing which his suit for specific performance of contract shall be deemed to be dismissed and ejectment petition filed by the respondent shall be accepted and the disputed house shall also be handed over to the respondent. Further stated that the respondent also got recorded his statement to the extent of compromise as stated above. That on the target date i.e. 3.1.2011 the petitioner Ghulam Haider has not fulfilled the said commitment and filed a frivolous application for the extension of time. Learned Courts below rightly refused to extend the time and accepted the ejectment petition. Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of instant writ petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. From the careful scanning of record it reveals that during the pendency of ejectment petition filed by the respondent Muhammad Rmazan titled "Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Ghulam Haider" before the Court of Special Judge (Rent), Bahawalpur, a compromise was effected between the parties on 8.12.2010. The present petitioner got recorded his statement that he will pay Rs.
30,00,000/- cash price of house in dispute to the respondent Muhammad Ramzan on or before 3.1.2011, and if he failed to pay the same, his suit for specific performance filed by him titled "Ghulam Haider Vs. Muhammad Ramzan" shall be deemed to be dismissed and ejectment petition of respondent shall be deemed to be accepted. He also undertook to hand over the vacant possession of house in question to the respondent Muhammad Ramzan on 3.1.2:111. It was also settled that in case of completion of compromise no dispute would be left between the parties. The respondent/Muhammad Ramzan also got recorded his statement on the same day wherein he accepted all the terms and conditions of the compromise mentioned by the petitioner earlier. The version of the petitioner is that it was also settled that if the price is not paid till the target date, time would be extended, but there is nothing on record in this regard whereas it has been clearly deposed by the petitioner in his statement that if he fails to pay the price of house on or before 3.1.2011, suit for specific performance of contract would be deemed to be dismissed and ejectment petition shall be accepted and he will hand over the vacant possession of house to Muhammad Ramzan respondent on the said date. Besides, the petitioner, at the time of filing of application for extension of time, had deposited nothing in the Court as he stressed in the application that he is ready to deposit Rs, 8,50,000/-. In fact he wanted to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other.
7. It is well-settled principle of law that where one party had made an offer to the other for performance of an act, within a specific period of time and such act was not performed by any party, the Court, without the consent of the party cannot extend time while exercising its powers under Section 148 or 151 of CPC and it was only with the consent of the party that time could be further granted. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as "1983 SCMR 836, 1979 SCMR 593, 2007 CLC 831 and PLD 1988 Karachi 429".
8. For the foregoing reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince this Court if there is any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and judgment/decree, warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the instant writ petition fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs. .