1. ORDER ORDER FAISAL ARAB, J.---This civil revision application has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. The respondents filed a Suit Bearing No.21 of 2006 for specific performance of the agreement whereby the Applicant on 6-12-2005 agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000 and received Rs.100,000 as advance. The remaining sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000 was to be paid within one month. One month expired on 571-2006. On 4-3-2006 suit for specific performance was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that since time was essence of the contract and the transaction was not completed within stipulated period of 30 days, the agreement came to an end and both the Courts below committed error in granting the relief of specific performance to the private respondents.
4. After going through the clauses of the sale agreement, no where it transpires that the time was made the essence of the contract. No doubt a period of thirty days is prescribed for the performance and the consequence for non-payment in the form of forfeiture of earnest money has also been provided in the agreement but such stipulations are contained in almost all type of sale agreements of immovable properties. In order to make time essence of the contract specific stipulation to that effect should have been there in the A agreement. In agreements where time was not the essence of the contract the contract can still be cancelled. Buyer can be denied the relief of specific performance but for such purpose a legal principle has been formulated whereby the seller is to first call upon the buyer to complete the transaction within a reasonable period of time preferably thirty days acid upon failure to complete the transaction the contract stands terminated. In this manner any contract where time was not the essence of the contract is made essence of the contract through serving notice on the buyer. In the present case no such notice has been served. This principle was devised by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962 in the case reported in PLD 1962 SC 1 where seller can make time the essence of the contract subsequent to the execution of the agreement to sell by serving notice on the buyer giving him reasonable time to complete the transaction. It is noteworthy that time for the performance of the agreement was 5th of January, 2006 and suit for specific performance was filed on 4th March, 2006 thus there was a gap of only 60 days between the time for performance of the contract and the filing of the suit, therefore, with this short period of time it cannot be said that the buyer was avoiding completion of the transaction. This Court, therefore, finds no legal justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Hence this revision application is dismissed in limine along with the listed application..