1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The petitioner instituted a suit on 13th May, 1965 for the specific performance of an agreement made on 12th May, 1960 regarding the sale of the disputed shop.
2. Under the said agreement Mst. Umda the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had agreed to re-transfer the shop to the petitioner within a period of 5 years of the execution of the agreement on the price paid by her to the Settlement Department. The case of the respondents was that a sum of Rs, 13,481; was paid by Mst. Urnda to the Settlement Department, but the petitioner, in his suit insisted on a decree for specific performance of the agreement on payment of Rs, 6,803.28 on the ground that payment made by Mst. Umda was through purchase of claims, which were available at 50% of their face value. The said plea having failed before the trial Court and the first appellate Court, he argued in the alternative at that stage that he was prepared to pay the full amount of Rs, 13,481. This plea was also rejected. The same was reiterated before the High Court on second appeal, but the learned Judge in the High Court rejected it by observing that the period of 5 years expired on 12th May, 1965 and the suit for specific performance was filed on 13th May, 1965 after the expiry of the stipulated period.
3. ' As regards the plea that time was not the assence of the contract it was observed that according to the contents of the agreement, time in this case was the essence of the contract. The second appeal accordingly was dismissed.
4. In support of this petition it is inter alia submitted that in cases of contracts in respect of immovable property, the time fixed for completion of the transaction is not normally to be regarded to be the essence of the contract. The presumption in such contracts is that though a specific time is mentioned within which completion is to take place, the parties really and in substance only intended that it should take place in a reasonable time. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court reported as Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhal-Abdul Hussain PLD 1962 SC 1.
5. ' Security in the sum of Rs, 2,500.
6. ' Status quo as to possession to be maintained meanwhile.