Civil Miscellaneous No.2/C of 2000 For orders to be passed in the main case no order needs to be passed in this Civil Miscellaneous.
The same is accordingly disposed of.
Civil Miscellaneous No.2/C of 2000 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of this Civil Revision. Since I am taking up the Civil Revision today no order needs to be passed in the Civil Miscellaneous. Disposed of accordingly.
Main Case Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners on 6-4-1993. Her case was that the suit-land was originally owned by Mst. Muhammadi Begum and ultimately devolved upon Mst. Umatur Rasool, mother of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and Syed Muhammad A.I Naqvi, the predecessor-in--- interest of petitioners Nos.4 to 9; that Mst. Umatur Rasool had appointed her husband Syed Shaukat A.I as a general attorney, who agreed to sell 1/3rd share. In the suit house and received a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of earnest money vide receipt dated 27-10-1986 from Abdul Latif the husband of the respondent. Later on the said Syed Muhammad A.I Naqvi also appointed the said Syed Shaukat A.I as a special attorney who upon receipt of Rs.25,000 from the said husband of the respondent executed an agreement, dated 12-11-1988 in favour of respondent and promised that upon execution of general power of attorney by petitioners Nos.4 to 9 he shall transfer the suit property to her. However, said Syed Shaukat A.I died and the respondent had been requesting the petitioners to transfer the suit-property to her but of no avail. With these averments a decree for declaration or in the alternate for specific performance of the said agreement was sought. In their written statement the plea raised by the petitioners was that they had heard that said Abdul Latif wanted to purchase the suit-house for his brother. Muhammad Shafiq and to transfer the same to him after receiving the price from him. It was further averred that the petitioners are not aware if Abdul Latif had paid some amount after taking the same from said Muhammad Shafiq. A reference was also made to a suit filed by Muhammad Shafiq and its being decreed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 5-3-1996. An appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by learned District Judge, Layyah who dismissed the same on 19-4-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the property had been sold by them to Shafiq and he has a decree in his favour against the petitioners. Further contends that the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are not sustainable.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this civil revision. I find that from the first day the petitioners had been fighting the case of said Shafiq who according to the petitioners has obtained a decree against the petitioners for specific performance. Copy of the plaint of the said suit is on record as Exh. P.9 while the judgment is Exh.P.10. According to this document an ex parte decree was passed on 15-10-1985 in favour of the said Shafiq subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs.8,000 upto 30-10-1988 in the Treasury and in case he fails to do so the suit shall stand dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits-at the Bar that the said Shafiq never deposited the said amount in accordance with the terms of the said decree. The result is that the said suit stood dismissed.
5. Learned counsel also informs that the said Shafiq and his wife Mst. Anwari Begum filed an application under Order I, A Rule 10, C.P.C. Which was opposed by the respondent. Through this application the --said applicants prayed that they be impleaded as a party to the suit as they have obtained a decree for specific performance. The application was heard by the learned trial Court and while rejecting the said application it was held that the said applicants had nothing to do with the suit-house as neither the term of the said decree was complied with nor the same was put into execution. The said Shafiq or his wife did not challenge the said order any further. In this view of the matter the sole plea raised by the petitioners that Shafiq had already obtained a decree and as such the present suit could not have been decreed, is without any legal or factual basis. There is no force in I this civil revision which is accordingly dismissed in limine.