Supreme Court cautions courts on property disputes amid soaring prices

Therefore, while dealing with property disputes, courts must interpret agreements concerning property in light of current economic realities, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb suggested in a judgement. The observation came while deciding a civil appeal and upholding the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) March 4, 2020, decision rejecting a suit for specific performance filed by a Sialkot-based purchaser, Amjad Javed, agai­nst property seller Maqsood Ahmad. A two-judge bench comprising Justices Shakeel Ahmad and Aurangzeb, while dismissing the purchaser’s appeal, also ruled that a buyer who failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the agreed timeframe could not seek enforcement of a property agreement. The dispute concerns a property in Revenue Estate Urban Chowinda in Pasrur tehsil of Sialkot district. Under an agreement executed on March 11, 2014, Mr Javed paid Rs800,000 as earnest money, while the remaining Rs6.48 million was to be paid by July 27, 2014. The agreement explicitly stated that failure to pay within the stipulated period would result in forfeiture of the earnest money. The SC noted that as the appellant did not deposit the balance amount of Rs6.4m despite being granted two opportunities, the trial court turned down his request for a further extension of time. On Jan 20, 2015, the trial court, by invoking Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, dismissed the appellant’s suit for specific performance of the agreement. Specifi