Supreme court held that 2nd suit of specific performance is not barred when cause is different .
 |
| Supreme court held that 2nd suit of specific performance is not barred when cause is different . |
PLD 2024 سپریم کورٹ 663 کے فیصلے میں، بیانہ رقم کی وصولی کے لیے دوسرے مقدمے کے برقرار رکھنے کے حوالے سے ایک منفرد نکتہ طے کیا گیا۔ آئیےاسے احاطہ کرتے ہیں:
1. **پس منظر**:
- مدعی نے ابتدائی طور پر غیر منقولہ جائیداد فروخت کرنے کے specific performance کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
- تاہم، یہ پہلا مقدمہ بعد میں واپس لے لیا گیا تھا.
- اس کے بعد، مدعی نے ادا کی گئی بیانہ رقم کی وصولی کے لیے دوسرا مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
2. **کارروائی کی وجہ**:
- اہم مسئلہ یہ تھا کہ آیا دونوں سوٹ میں کارروائی کی وجہ مختلف تھی۔
- پہلے مقدمے میں، مدعی نے الزام لگایا کہ مدعا علیہان (وینڈر اور اٹارنی) نے غیر قانونی طور پر فروخت کا معاہدہ منسوخ کر دیا ہے۔
- مدعی نے معاہدے کی specific performance کے ذریعے جائیداد پر قبضے کا حکم نامہ طلب کیا۔
- اس کے برعکس، دوسرا مقدمہ مختلف الزامات پر مبنی تھا:
- بیچنے کا معاہدہ فریقین کی باہمی رضامندی سے منسوخ کر دیا گیا تھا۔
- مدعا علیہان نے مدعی کو بیانیہ رقم (5,000,000 روپے) واپس کرنے پر اتفاق کیا۔
- مدعی نے vendor's attorney, کے بیان پر انحصار کیا، جو ہائی کورٹ کے ڈپٹی رجسٹرار (جوڈیشل) کے سامنے ریکارڈ کیا گیا۔
- دوسرے مقدمے میں مدعی کی دیا بیانہ کی وصولی کے لیے تھی۔
3. **عمل کی تازہ وجہ**:
- عدالت نے کہا کہ دوسرے مقدمے میں کارروائی کی وجہ پہلے مقدمے سے الگ تھی۔
- قبضے کا حق صرف اس وقت پیدا ہوتا ہے جب مخصوص کارکردگی) کا فیصلہ کیا جائے۔ )specific performance
- اسی طرح، بیانہ رقم کی واپسی کا حق صرف اس وقت پیدا ہوتا ہے جبspecific performance مخصوص کارکردگی سے انکار کیا جاتا ہے۔
- لہذا، معاہدے کی منسوخی کی وجہ سے مخصوص کارکردگی کے انکار سے متعلق حقائق نے کارروائی کی ایک نئی وجہ بنائی۔
- نتیجتاً، رقم کی وصولی کے لیے دوسرا مقدمہ سول پروسیجر کوڈ (C.P.C.) کے آرڈر II، رول 2 کے تحت نہیں روکا گیا تھا۔
یہ فیصلہ ایک ہی لین دین سے پیدا ہونے والی کارروائی کی مختلف وجوہات کی بنیاد پر بعد کے سوٹ کے برقرار رکھنے کے بارے میں قانونی پوزیشن کو واضح کرتا ہے۔
In the judgment PLD 2024 SUPREME COURT 663, a unique point was decided regarding the maintainability of a second suit for recovery of earnest money. Let's break it down:
1. **Background**:
- The plaintiff initially filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
- However, this first suit was later withdrawn.
- Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a second suit seeking recovery of the earnest money paid.
2. **Cause of Action**:
- The critical issue was whether the cause of action in both suits was different.
- In the first suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants (vendor and attorney) had illegally canceled the agreement to sell.
- The plaintiff sought a decree for possession of the property through specific performance of the agreement.
- In contrast, the second suit was based on different allegations:
- The agreement to sell was canceled by mutual consent of the parties.
- The defendants agreed to return the earnest money (Rs. 5,000,000) to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff relied on the statement of the vendor's attorney, recorded before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court.
- The prayer of the plaint in the second suit was for the recovery of earnest money.
3. **Fresh Cause of Action**:
- The court held that the cause of action in the second suit was distinct from that in the first suit.
- The right to possession arises only when specific performance is decreed.
- Similarly, the right to a refund of earnest money arises only when specific performance is denied.
- Therefore, the facts related to the denial of specific performance due to the cancellation of the agreement constituted a fresh cause of action.
- Consequently, the second suit for recovery of money was not barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the maintainability of subsequent suits based on different causes of action arising from the same transaction¹. .
Judgement
PLD 2024 SUPREME COURT 663
Suit to include the whole claim -- Agreement to sell immoveable property , cancellation of --- Earnest money paid , recovery of --- First suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by plaintiff ( vendee ) was withdrawn- Plaintiff filed second suit for recovery of earnest money paid -... Whether second suit was maintainable , and whether the cause of action in both suits was different ? -- Held , that cause of action in the second suit was not the same as in the first suit --- First suit was brought alleging that the defendants ( vendor and his attorney ) illegally got cancelled the agreement to sell , and as such , the plaintiff claimed a decree for possession of the property by specific performance of the said agreement --- Whereas the second suit of the plaintiff was based upon the allegations that the agreement to sell was cancelled by mutual . consent of the parties , and it was agreed that the defendants would return the earnest money of Rs.5,000,000 to the plaintiff --- In support of these allegations , the plaintiff relied on the statement of attorney of the vendor , which he recorded before the Deputy Registrar ( Judicial ) of the High Court , and the prayer of the plaint was for recovery of earnest money --- This relief could not have been claimed by the plaintiff in his first suit for possession of the property by specific performance of the agreement to sell , because the right to possession accrues only when specific performance is decreed --- Similarly , the right to refund of earnest money accrues only when specific performance is denied --- As such , the facts relating to the denial of specific performance resulting from the cancellation of the agreement to sell , and the settlement agreement in the case constituted a fresh cause of action , and therefore , the second suit for recovery of money based thereon could not be held to be barred under Order II , Rule 2 , C.P.C .--- Appeal was allowed , and Trial Court was directed to decide the second suit of plaintiff on merits -
Suit to include the whole claim --- Order II , Rule 2 , C.P.C --- Object and scope stated .
Comments
Post a Comment