This first appeal against order has been filed against the recording of compromise statement dated 14.3.2012 where after a decree dated 14.3.2012 was passed in the. Suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents, filed a suit for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 11.2.2008. The suit was filed on 16.6.2008 and another suit was filed on 11.6.2010 for specific performance by the appellants on the basis of same agreement to sell. Vide order dated 22.2.2012 both the suits were and the proceedings were ordered to be conducted in previously filed suit i.e. Suit specific performance was annexed with that file, therefore, the plaintiffs Abdul Rehman etc. Were presumed to be plaintiffs who were plaintiffs of suit for cancellation of document, whereas the petitioners were presumed to be defendants as they were plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance. On 14.3.2012 one of the plaintiffs Attique-ur-Rehman who was attorney of other plaintiffs and has been identified by his counsel got recorded a statement that if Haji Muhammad Siddique etc. Pay the remaining amount within one month, the plaintiffs have no objection and the suit for specific performance be decreed. The learned counsel for Muhammad Siddique etc. Stated that he has heard the said statement of the plaintiff that if one month's time is granted they are ready to deposit the remaining amount. On the basis of this statement the learned Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance subject to deposit of the decretal amount within one month, failing which the suit will be presumed to have been dismissed, the other suit for cancellation of document was dismissed and if amount is not deposited, the suit for cancellation of document will be presumed to have been decreed.
3. Now this appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1(m), C.P.C. Has been filed. When confronted to the learned counsel for the appellants that how this appeal against the order is competent, when decree has been granted in favour of his client on the same day and further that how power of compromise was not given to the learned counsel when it is written in the Vakalat Nama and further that how he interprets the statement of the learned counsel recorded on 14.3.2012 against the interesting of the appellants when he got decreed the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance of contract and further that how the appellants claim that they were to pay remaining amount in installments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon case titled Fazal Mehdi and others v. Allah Ditta (2007 SC 343) and Abdul Shakoor and others v. Haroon and others (2008 SCM R 896). We have carefully gone through these pronouncements of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. We respectfully agree with the ratio of these judgments but these are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In a suit for specific performance till the time a plaintiff is not ready to make payment of the remaining amount he is not entitled to grant of a decree. In case in hand when the defendants of the suit for specific performance made statement before the Court and the learned counsel for the appellants requested the Court for giving one month time for deposit of remaining amount, the counsel who made statement on behalf of the appellants was their counsel and we have observed above, he was entitled to make statement in the Court and he has got decreed the suit, therefore, in no way the statement is prejudicial to the rights of the appellants. We disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that this appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1(m) C.P.C. Is competent. When a suit has been decreed in favour of the appellants, therefore, the appeal against the order was not competent. Further the contention of the learned counsel with regard to making the statement by the counsel without authority is not borne from the record. What we have gathered from the record is that appellants want more time for payment which shows that they have not come before this Court with clean hands.
FAO. Dismissed.