𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭 𝐃𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐒𝐂

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭 𝐃𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐒𝐂

In a recent judgment, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar of the Supreme Court has attempted to settle a long standing issue of whether a purchasing  party to a suit of specific performance is required to deposit the remaining sale consideration at the time of institution of the suit or he should do so on the direction of the court. So far, there are number of judgments of the Supreme Court on this point which are construed that it is condition precedent for a purchaser to deposit the remaining sale consideration first and then proceed with the suit. However, non of those judgments rules so. The Supreme Court attempted in the recent judgment to settle this question and examined all its judgments on this point.

The Court, after analysing different judgments on this point, held that the above question was not before the Court in any of those judgments. The Court said that non of the judgments  of the Supreme Court requires a party to deposit sale consideration on the first date or at the time of institution of case.

𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠

Therefore, the Court held that no provision of the C.P.C sets up a condition precedent to deposit remaining sale consideration for instituting a suit for specific performance. The said amount should be deposited on the direction of the court only and that too within reasonable time frame, which is also extendable, if valid reasons are furnished by the concerned party.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬

After having settled this question of law, the Court reverted to  another concern that what should be the approach of the courts to decide such cases of specific performance where amount of one party and property of another party are blocked and the litigation does not end unless it reaches to the Supreme Court after passing years after years. The parties suffer in two ways: there properties are blocked and they spend many years in litigation. The price of immovable property raises up with double pace of the profit which might accrue from the deposited sale consideration invested in a government scheme. In short, the profit of the amount does not commensurate with the value of the immovable property raised during the litigation period.

𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬

Therefore, the the Court directed the lower courts to adopt dynamic and proactive approach to decide such cases of specific performance where properties of both the parties are at stake and blocked with the court in suits of specific performance . The Court further asserted that the proactive role of the courts becomes more significant where the public interest is also involved in a high commercial cases. The Court stressed that it is the duty of the courts to devise new tolls and instruments to  provide justice to common man. Therefore, the Court suggested three possible ways to decide such cases of specific performance: one, to require notice of admission or denials  from the parties and ask each of them to admit facts which they agree on. This will help minimise the time period; two,   the court can persuade the parties to resole their issue through mediation or alternate mode of dispute resolution; and lastly, if all these modes are failed and the case comes back to the court, the court should proceed with it on fast track and it may appoint a Commission to record evidence within a short and specific time.

Click to Download