' The facts leading to this revision briefly are that Khalifa Muhammad Yaqub petitioner/plaintiff agreed to purchase 8 marlas of land for Rs,8,000 from Muhammad Siddiq respondent. He paid Rs,2,000 as earnest money on 26-4-1974. It was agreed that he will get the sale-deed registered within 4 months and if Muhammad Siddiq defendant/respondent resiles, he will pay Rs,4,000 to the plaintiff as damages. The petitioner approached the respondents for the registration of sale in his favour but he refused. Instead on 14-1-1975, he sold the disputed land to Muhammad Shafi respondent. So, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract and also for declaration to the effect that the sale by Muhammad Siddiq respondent/defendant in favour of Muhammad Shafi respondent was illegal, void and inoperative upon his rights. During the pendency of the suit Muhammad Shafi transferred the land to Luqman Ahmad and then Luqman Ahmad rented it to Abdul Hameed, therefore, the subsequent vendees were impleaded as defendants. The suit was resisted whereon 11 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 17-3-1987. The appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30-10-1989, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the time was the essence of the contract and the petitioner validly tendered the balance amount to Muhammad Siddiq respondent No,1 within time and as such he was not estopped to bring the suit and that defendant No,2 was not a bona fide purchaser, inasmuch as, he fully knew about agreement to sell already entered between the petitioner/plaintiff and Muhammad Siddiq respondent No,1 and that the remaining respondents having purchased the suit land during the pendency of the suit cannot be termed as bona fide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. 1 find that the Courts below have appplied their conscious mind to the relevant evidence and given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of contract within the time stipulated in the agreement. In para 10 of its judgment, the trial Court has observed that: "Agreement between the parties was executed on 26-4-1974 and it was stipulated that defendant No,1 will execute registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff within four months and if he will fail he will pay Rs, 2,000 alongwith token money as damages and if the plaintiff will fail to pay the remaining price of land his token money will be forfeited. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence that he tendered money within time stipulated between the parties. No notice was given to defendant No,1 for execution of sale-deed. Money was not tendered to the defendant No,1 as sale price within the prescribed time. It is also admission on the part of plaintiff that he has not asked for the return of token money but he has been stressing on payment of remaining Rs, 25,000. The amount due from the plaintiff was six thousand which he has not tendered to defendant No,1 nor he has served any notice to the defendant for execution of sale-deed in his favour. It is also admission on the part of the plaintiff that he has not restrained the defendants from raising construction over the disputed land nor he has informed them about the suit pending in the Court. The conduct of the plaintiff seems to be mala fide. The plaintiff has failed to fulfil his part of agreement within time stipulated between the parties which was essence of the contract."
The learned counsel has not been able to controvert the aforesaid observations made by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court was also of the view that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract within time stipulated between the parties. I find that on his own showing the plaintiff had not tendered the balance amount of Rs, 6,000. Instead he tendered Rs, 2,500 to respondent No,1. This being the position, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Courts below. Furthermore, the relief in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract is discretionary in nature. It was agreed between the parties that if any party to the contract will fail to perform his part of contract, he will be penalized and in case defendant No,1 fails to get the sale- deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, he will pay Rs, 4,000 to the plaintiff as damages so the pecuniary compensation for the non-performance of part of defendant was accepted by the plaintiff, therefore, specific performance could not be enforced under section 12(c) & (d) of Specific Relief Act. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance. So the revision is dismissed in limine.