1. C.M.A. No,10110 of 2000 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Has been filed by learned counsel for the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking restraining orders against the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4 from selling, alienating or disposing of the subject property. The relevant facts for disposal of this application are that the plaintiff as an Estate Agent, entered into an Agreement dated 26-6-1999 in respect of the property owned by the defendant No,1 through his Attorney the defendant No,2 for getting the subject property vacated and disposing it of at a bargain price, within a period of six months from the date of agreement, which period was extendable by mutual consent. Mr. Shafaat Hussain, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in furtherance of the contract, the plaintiff incurred expenses and assumed obligations to achieve the object of the contract; however, the defendants in order to get away with the obligations under the contract appointed another Attorney to deal with the property in order to frustrate the' rights created in the property by virtue of the Agreement referred to above, plaintiff had negotiated a Sale Agreement and Deed of Joint Venture Agreement between the plaintiff, defendant No,l. And tenants of property i,e, defendants Nos.4 and 5. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of last two referred instruments. As against above, Mr. Amir Malik, learned counsel for defendants contends that no Sale Agreement was executed between the parties as contended by the plaintiff. According to him, suit is incompetent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as in the instant suit, no consequential relief for possession has been sought. He further submits that there was no sale agreement, the alleged Joint Venture Contract is not concluded agreement, both the documents are blank and not signed, he, therefore, contends that under the circumstances, claim in suit cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case-laws as reported AlHuda Hotels and Tourism Co. And others v. Paktel Limited and others 2002 CLC 218 and Farmanullah and others v. Qalandar and 5 others 1999 YLR 1610. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available and brought on record and examined the case-law. There is no dispute as to the Agreement dated 6th June, 1999 between the parties which, inter aim.
2. Provided that plaintiff would make efforts and invest funds to get the suit property under the tenancy vacated and obtained the best price of the property. It is further case of the plaintiff that during the course of his efforts, some proposals were exchanged, wherein, the tenants also participated; however, such proposals were not accepted by the defendants, same accordingly did not materialize due to backing out of the defendants. It is admitted by Mr., Shaffat Hussain, learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff did not initiate the proceedings for . Eviction of the tenants in order to execute his obligations under the contract. He submits that it was on account of intervening negotiation and exchange of the proposals, the initial period of six months had expired, which according to him was extendable. According to him, he is being deprived of his compensation for making efforts to get the premises vacated and/or dispose of, within given time and in case of non-eviction according to him he is entitled to Re.1 Million in terms of the contract.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants is that the Agreement to Sell and Joint Venture Agreement of which specific performance is sought are not concluded contract. I have perused the alleged Joint Venture Agreement Annexures 'D' and 'D/1' respectively to the plaint same are blank. It is not even signed by the plaintiff, what to speak of defendants. Prima facie. Such documents cannot be presumed to be concluded or executed document. No documents have been produced to even suggest that there was any proposal of the nature sought to be enforced.
4. Even the Legal Notice dated 6-11-2000 was sent almost 4 months after the subject property was offered to be sold by the plaintiff through defendant No,3, vide advertisement dated 30-4-2002.
5. Under the circumstances, proposed unsigned agreement cannot be enforced. Plaintiff if at all, had incurred any expenses in getting the premises vacated in terms of the Agreement dated 26th June 1999 may be entitled to be compensated for the expenses, if any, incurred by him. Admittedly, no ejectment cases were filed. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants that on failure of the plaintiff to fulfil contractual obligation within stipulated time of six (6) months defendant No, f through defendant No,3 the appointment of another Attorney had placed advertisement in the newspaper on 30-4-2000 which act amounts to termination of the agreement dated 26-6-1999 whereas, the suit was filed on 30-11-2000 after much delay. In this case, in my opinion no right or equity has devolved unto him. Any proposal or agreement that might have been agreed between the plaintiff and the tenants has not been signed by either of the party. There is no material available on record to suggest that any party to the purported Agreement agreed for the terms and conditions set out therein. In the case of Al-Huda Hotels and Tourism 2002 CLD 218, even exchange of proposal admitted on record was not considered sufficient to be termed as concluded, contract, in instant case in hand, there is no material to show that such proposal or purported agreement were intended to be executed by the defendant No, l. The claim of the plaintiff if at all under the circumstances could be for financial claim or for that matter for recovery of the amount spent for the efforts made by him to get the premises vacated.
6. Prima facie, plaintiff has failed to make out a case of concluded or even a negotiated agreement of which specific performance could be claimed. Under circumstances, defendant No,1 cannot be restrained from dealing with their own property in the manner. The plaintiff has prayed for the Judgment and Decree in the sum of Rs,20 Million which fact is sufficient to disentitle him to claim injunctive relief. Neither the plaintiff has prima facie good case nor the balance of convenience in his favour nor he will suffer any irreparable loss. In case, he succeed in establishing amount of expenses incurred by him, he May recover the same subject to proof. The upshot of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this injunction application filed by the plaintiff, which is accordingly dismissed and the same stands dispose of as such.