• Emphasizes that real‑estate contracts must be interpreted under current economic realities
• Declares that a purchaser who fails to meet a payment deadline cannot seek specific performance
• Affirms Lahore High Court’s earlier dismissal of the buyer’s claim
ISLAMABAD – In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court urged lower courts to consider contemporary market conditions when resolving property disputes, noting that real‑estate values now experience rapid, often exponential, increases, unlike the slow appreciation of past decades.
The directive emerged within the context of a civil appeal in which the Court upheld a Lahore High Court ruling from March 4, 2020, that dismissed a suit for specific performance filed by Sialkot‑based purchaser Amjad Javed against seller Maqsood Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Shakeel Ahmad and Aurangzeb, in dismissing the appellant’s appeal, also ruled that a buyer who fails to clear the balance sale consideration within the agreed timeframe cannot enforce a property agreement on the basis of specific performance.
The dispute involves a property in Revenue Estate Urban Chowinda, Pasrur tehsil, Sialkot district. Under an agreement signed on March 11, 2014, Mr Javed paid an earnest sum of Rs 800,000, with the remaining Rs 6.48 million due by July 27, 2014. The contract explicitly stipulated that failure to pay on time would result in forfeiture of the earnest money.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant did not deposit the remaining Rs 6.48 million despite being granted two opportunities, and the trial court had already denied his request for a further extension.
Consequently, on January 20, 2015, the trial court, invoking Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, dismissed the appellant’s suit for specific performance.
Specific performance
Justice Aurang‑zeb, in his judgment, underscored that a plaintiff seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance must demonstrably be ready, willing, and able to perform their contractual obligations.
“If a plaintiff fails to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the trial court, the presumption is that the plaintiff was not serious about pursuing the remedy,” he remarked.
To proceed with a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must satisfy the criteria outlined in Forms 47 and 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure’s First Schedule.
Form 47 requires the plaintiff or seller to plead that they “have been and remain ready and willing to perform the agreement on their part, to which the defendant has given notice.”
Form 48 requires the plaintiff or purchaser to plead that they “are still ready and willing to pay the purchase price for the property to the defendant.”
“Although the petitioner asserts readiness and capacity to pay the balance sale consideration, his failure to comply with the court’s directive to deposit the balance ultimately deprives him of the right to seek specific performance,” the decree states.
The judgment further noted that the appellant’s conduct suggested speculative litigation and an abuse of equitable jurisdiction, as the suit had been filed without genuine intent to pay the outstanding consideration or deposit it into the court.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant’s late deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs 6.48 million on January 24, 2018—over three and a half years after the contractual deadline—did not ameliorate his case, given the elapsed contractual payment period.