This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2005; Writ Petition No. 2105 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 1160 of 2005, as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. These writ petitions were instituted against consolidated order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala in revisional jurisdiction, whereby plaint of the petitioner was rejected/returned with regard to remaining issues except Issue No. 2.
3. Brief history of the case is that suit for specific performance of contract and for possession was filed by writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 2105 of 2005. According to the averments as contained in the plaint Respondent No. 3 entered into contract for sale of the house in consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- out of which Rs. 6,00,000/- were received by him as earnest money. Subsequently, Respondent No.. 3 denied the execution of sale deed and the suit for specific performance of contract was filed. Averments of the petitioner/plaintiff were controverted by Respondent No. 3 and subsequently Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party and also resisted the suit as it was maintained that suit land was joint property and the Respondent No. 3 had no authority to- sell the same on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and hence the suit cannot be decreed against Respondent No. 4. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-- (1)Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD (2)Whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 25.10.1994 and had received Rs.
600,000/- as earnest money out of the total consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-?OPP (3)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form ?OPD (4)Whether the defendant extended the last date for registration of the sale deed to 05.01.1996 ?
OPP (5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract dated 25.10.1994, if so, on what terms and conditions.? OPP (6)Relief.
4. After framing of issues the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 26.3.2004 and directed the respondents to produce evidence. Respondents No. 3 & 4 separately filed revision against rejection of their application before Revisional Court. After hearing both the parties Revisional Court came to the conclusion that specific performance of contract could not be granted, hence the suit of the plaintiff was rejected with regard to Issues No. 1, 3 to 6. However, case was remanded to the learned Trial Court to give its findings on Issue No. 2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by the learned Revisional Court is self-contradictory and hence, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1160 of 2005 who is Respondent No. 4 in the present writ petitions also assailed the findings of the Revisional Court and maintained that the plaint should have been rejected and case did not merit to be remanded for determination of Issue No. 2.
6. Record reveals that P.C. Card was issued to the learned counsel for the respondent on 15.09.2010 and the case was fixed for today. However, none has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 & 4 nor any request for adjournment has been made on their behalf. Case was kept pending until end of the day, hence it is being decided on the averments contained in their pleadings.
7. It is an admitted position that order passed by the revisional Court is assailed at least; to the extent of Issue No. 2. However, the petitioner's contention is that the plaint could not be rejected for determination of Issue No. 2, this application should have been dismissed and order passed by the trial Court should have been upheld, whereas Respondent No. 4 has maintained that Issue No. 2 did not require adjudication and the plaint should have been rejected in toto. Perusal of .issue amply demonstrates that Issue Nos. 2 & 5 are interrelated. If the agreement for sale of the house was executed by Respondent No. 3 and that earnest money of Rs. 6,00,000/- was received by him then determination of remaining issues by the learned trial Court is imperative. However, the question whether decree can be executed or not should have been left for the learned trial Court to decide.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that applications filed by the Respondents No. 3 & 4 are collusive also needs consideration of the trial Court. The averments need determination of facts, hence it appears that order passed by the Revisional Court is self- contradictory and is not sustainable in law. Issue with regard to relief has also been framed; therefore, it was the learned trial Court to decide the relief which could be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff. The impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court being vague and in conclusive is set aside and order passed by the trial Court is upheld; therefore, Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 2105 of 2005 are allowed and Writ Petition No. 1160 of 2005 is dismissed.
8. Before parting with this judgment, as it is an old case, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of this judgment. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.