1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The defendant-vendee seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1980 whereby the regular second appeal filed by him against the specific performance of en agreement to sell was dismissed.
2. On the 5th July, 1965 the plaintiff-respondents entered into an agreement to purchase the land in Teshil Kasur from Sharif respondent No.1. The registered deed was due to be executed by 12-8-1965.
3. On the 10th of October, 1965 the petitioners purchased the same land. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondents that their Advocate had informed them et the the of registration that there was an agreement to sell in their favour but in spite of it they got the sale-deed registered. The plaintiff-respondents thereupon instituted a suit for specific performance. The defence taken up by the petitioners was that an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff-respondents required performance of the contract of sale and its registration by the 2nd of August, 1965 and there had been a failure on the part of the plaintiff-respondents to perform their part of the contract which had expired and subsequently by interpolating and changing the date therein from 2-8-1965 to 12- 8-1965 the plaintiff-respondents wanted to set up a false claim. Another contention was that by serving a notice on the vendor on 10-8-1965 and demanding the liquidated damages prescribed in the agreement to sell the plaintiff-respondents had abandoned their claim to specific performance and could not be granted the relief they were granted. All the three Courts have rejected the defence of the petitioners and maintained the decree.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated all his objections but insisted on the second, namely, the entitlement of the plaintiff --respondents to seek specific performance after claiming only liquidated damages from the vendor. According to the learned counsel the plaintiff -- respondents had by serving that notice on the vendor abandoned the relief of specific performance. He has relied on Swarath Ram Ram Saran vs. Ram Ballabh and others AIR 1925 All.
5. 595 and Messrs Ashrafi (Pvt.) Ltd. And another v. Messrs Karachi Transport Syndicate Ltd PLD 1973 Note 150 at p. 230.
6. So far as the findings of fact are concerned which are that there was no alteration in the date of agreement to sell and that there was no failure on the part of the plaintiff-respondents to perform the e contract and also the petitioners had notice of the agreement to sell we find that they are not open to further scrutiny at this stage. As, regards the legal question that by serving such a notice on the vendor with regard to his resiling from the agreement to sell it cannot be said that they had abandoned their relief against the petitioners the vendees. The contract for specific performance was enforceable against the vendee's and they had been given no such impression that would not be done. There could be some plausible merit in this submission of the petitioner if he vendee had complied with the notice and before institution of the suit compensated the plaintiff-respondents with the damages claimed and stipulated in the agreement.
7. We find that the High Court has examined the legal aspects of the submission and the question does not require further examination. Hence leave to appeal is refused.