1. ' This suit by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15th March, 1984 has been instituted against the defendant.
2. ' That on 15-3-1984 plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant for purchase of single storey house constructed on Plot No,28/1, Khayaban-e-Tanzeem, Phase V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, measuring about 1,000 square yards. Defendant executed the above agreement in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the property in suit for a sum of Rs,9,00,000. In pursuance to the said agreement to sell the plaintiff paid, Rs,9,00,000 through a pay order, dated 13-2-1984 bearing No, 241435 drawn on Grindlays Bank Ltd., Branch. The defendant encashed the pay order. The defendant passed a receipt, dated 15-3-1984 acknowledging the receipt of the amount. After receiving payment the defendant put the plaintiff in possession of the house and the plaintiff is enjoying uninterrupted possession of the house. Under the agreement the defendant was to execute the sale-deed before the Registrar and in the meantime the defendant had to complete the formalities. After one month the plaintiff made several attempts to find out the defendant to complete those formalities and also to ask him to execute sale-deed. He came to know that he had abandoned his residence and had left Karachi. It appears that the defendant failed to complete the sale in favour of plaintiff as agreed and, therefore, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to complete the deal in accordance with the above agreement, through a public notice published in Daily 'Dawn', dated 3-5-1984. However the defendant failed to comply with the above notice and as such the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 15-3-1984. The defendant did not clear taxes, dues and other charges according to the agreement. The plaintiff cleared the same on his behalf.
3. ' The defendant was served through substituted services by publication in Newspapers Dawn, dated 12-3-1985 and Daily 'Mashriq', dated 12-3-1985. The defendant was called absent.
4. ' The plaintiff has exmained himself as Exh. P/1 and has produced an agreement of sale as Exh. P/1, receipt for Rs,9,00,000 as P1/1/2. Copy of pay order, dated 13-2-1984 as P1/3, Public notice published in 'Dawn', dated 3-5-1984 as Exh. P/1/4 and payments of all taxes and charges in respect of the property as Exhs. P/1/5 to P/1/10.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Noor Muhammad learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. ' The plaintiff has examined himself (Exhs. P/1). Apart from that oral evidence the plaintiff has produce the original agreement to sell executed in his favour by the defendant (Exh. P/1/1), photostat copy of payments for Rs,900,000, dated 13-3-1984 (Exh. P/1/3), Original receipt, dated 15- 3-1984 for Rs,9,00,000 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff (Exh. P/1/2). The plaintiff cleared all the taxes and charges in respect of the property (Exh. P/1/5/ to 10). The above documentary evidence supported by oral evidence to show that the defendant executed the agreement of sale in respect of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs,9,00,000 and received the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff. I, therefore, hold that the defendant is liable to convey the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement of sale Exh. P/1/1.v ' Mr. Noor Muhammad, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that according to clause 6 of the agreement (Exh. P/1/1) the defendant was liable to pay all the taxes, charges, ground rent, property tax uptil 15-4-1984. The defendant was called upon to complete all the formalities but he failed to comply with all the formalities and also to clear all dues. As the defendant failed to clear the same, the plaintiff cleared all the dues amounting to Rs,32,915 and produced receipts in support of those payments as Exhs. P/1/5 to 10.
7. ' Mr. Noor Muhammad, the learned counsel has also contended that the defendant failed to obtain lease in Form B after complying with all the formalities which will cost about Rs,10,000. The learned counsel has further contended that the defendant failed and neglected to pay and discharge the mortgage debt of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., and to obtain and deliver the title deeds to the plaintiff. The said mortgage debt comes to about Rs,2,20,000 uptil the filing of the suit.
8. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act provides that if in a suit for specific performance of a contract the Court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that it is not sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the contract should also be made to the plaintiff it shall award him such compensation accordingly. According to clause 9 of the agreement the defendant had to clear all dues and charges uptil the date of execution of the agreement.
9. In the present suit the plaintiff has claimed for the award of compensation in addition to the specific performance. The object of the rule embodied in section 19 is clearly to prevent a multiplicity of suit, and to do complete justice between the parties. The loss which the plaintiff has sustained by the sums e.g. The amount of Rs, 10,000 to be expended for obtaining lease in Form B, the amount due to the mortgagee is also entitled to interest till the date of the payment.
10. ' For the above reasons I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the contract specifically and I, therefore, allow the suit as prayed and grant him decree accordingly for execution of conveyance in his favour on payment of about Rs,2,20,000 by the plaintiff to the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.
11. And also further amount which may be due to the Bank on account of the interest accruing after he institution of the suit and the plaintiff shall also expend about Rs,10,000 for obtaining lease on B Form. The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover all the amounts and the costs incurred by him from the defendant. The sale-deed will be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff within one month from today failing which Nazir of the Court will execute the same in accordance with law.
12. The costs of the suit will be borne by the defendant.