Section 32 : Enforcement of contracts contingent is an event happening
2021 PLD 453 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL WAHEED VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
62(f)—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 32 & 56—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2—Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Contract of “license” to use premises—Impracticability or frustration of contract of license—Restitution/compensation for impracticability/frustration of contract—Impact on contractual relationship between parties due to Covid-19 Pandemic and Lockdown—Principles for grant of Interim relief—Scope—Petitioner/plaintiff, held a contract with defendant for running hostelry at a Hospital, paid contract consideration in advance, however, due to Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown imposed, petitioner incurred heavy losses in business and sought reimbursement of “rent” paid during lockdown period, and deferring of any further advance payable under contract, as well as relief against recovery of utility bills, and instituted a suit before Trial Court for such relief—Petitioner impugned order of Appellate Court, whereby partial interim relief granted by Trial Court, which restrained recovery of monies from petitioner/plaintiff, was set aside—Validity—Agreement between petitioner and defendant was in nature of a license and not a lease, and thus S.62(f) of Easements Act, 1882 would apply, which being a special law, would also exclude applicability of S.56 of Contract Act, 1872—Under S.62(f) of Easements Act, 1882, test to be adopted was of “impracticability” instead of “impossibility”, which was subjective—For adjudication of impracticability claim, a court was to ask whether supervening event so radically altered things that it became onerous for promisor to fulfil his promise and it was unwise to hold them to a bargain; and judicial relief may not be afforded if impact of an event was little or otherwise not material—Argument of commercial impracticability or frustration should not provide a means of escape from a contract less profitable than anticipated—Question as to whether a license became impracticable was a question of fact, requiring evidence, and thus Court should avoid giving conclusive findings on same while adjudicating interim relief under O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.—Record, in present case, revealed that despite lockdown imposed due to Covid-19, petitioner’s business was not completely disrupted and frustration of contract did not occur, therefore question of compensation or restitution for petitioner did not arise—Frustration brought a contract to an end forthwith, and in present case, petitioner did not quit after the alleged frustration and continued to operate the hostelry till expiry of contract—High Court observed that petitioner’s claim for compensation by way of remission of monthly charges (or what petitioner referred to as rent) for lockdown period was not maintainable for reason that courts had no mandate to rewrite a contract—Trial Court therefore could not have restrained recovery of monies due from petitioner as contracts between petitioner and defendant were independent and governed by their own terms, facts and circumstances—No illegality existed in impugned order—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2021 MLD 698 ISLAMABAD
BASHIR AHMED VS MUHAMMAD ISA
Ss.12, 22 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.32—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and injunction—Contingent contract—Description of property, absence of—Plaintiff/appellant filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell executed by defendant/respondent regarding plots allotted to him after execution of the agreements in question— Trial Court dismissed the suit— Validity—Defendant/respondent did not have any specific title of plot which could be transferred through agreements in question—Plaintiff/appellant failed to establish execution of agreements as stamp papers for execution of agreements were purchased by plaintiff/appellant himself and not by the seller i.e. defendant/respondent—Both agreements did not contain specific particulars of plot and the agreement did not qualify status of contingent contract, to be enforced by operation of law on account of deficient in terms of S.32 of Contract Act, 1872, which had made contingent contract enforceable by law—No agreement after issuance of final allotment letter i.e. title document— Only those agreements were enforceable by law under Specific Relief Act, 1877, which had entailed specific, exact and complete details of land/property, coupled with the consideration, while a contingent contract could not be enforced by law until the event had happened— High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court— High Court directed defendant/respondent to return amount received from plaintiff/appellant—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2017 YLR 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE
Ss. 31, 32 & 202—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54—Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19—Suit for permanent injunction—General power of attorney—Agreement to sell by the attorney—Transfer of property by the Revenue Officer on the basis of decree for permanent injunction—Contingent contract—Scope—Alleged agreement to sell was subject to conferment of proprietary rights—Respondents could not sue for enforcement of conditional agreement to sell unless proprietary rights were granted in favour of original allottee or after his death in favour of his legal heirs—When vendee had executed general power of attorney along with an agreement to sell then transaction would be under S. 202 of Contract Act, 1872—Attorney had executed agreement to sell in favour of his own kids on the basis of general power of attorney—Attorney without seeking specific prior permission could not execute an agreement to sell with his near and dear ones—Decree was passed in a suit for permanent injunction but Revenue Officer considered the same as had been passed in a suit for specific performance—Matter was remanded to the Revenue Officer for decision afresh—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
2012 SCMR 345 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
12—Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 31 & 32—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell State land against its tenant after acquiring its proprietary rights—Tenant’s plea was that suit was not maintainable as the agreement was executed without obtaining permission from the Collector—Validity—Agreement showed that its specific performance had been postponed till acquisition of proprietary rights by tenant—Such a reservation in the agreement showed awareness of prohibition, recognition of its legal effect and effort on part of contracting parties to keep themselves well within confines of law to act in accordance with requirements of law—Such agreement was of contingent nature enforceable after conferment of proprietary rights on tenant and could not be termed to be violative of either provisions of S. 19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or public policy behind thereof—Tenant after acquiring proprietary rights had denied to transfer suit land to plaintiff, thus, suit filed by him was competent—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2012 SCMR 345 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Ss.31 & 32—Contingent contract—Enforceability—Scope.
2008 CLC 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUREED ALI VS Mst. MALOOKAN BIBI
12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.32—Suit of specific performance of sale agreement—Sale of defendant’s land during her minority by her mother—Defendant on attaining majority did not ratify sale of her land by her mother, but agreed to sell same to defendant and appointed him as her Attorney authorizing him to file suit for setting aside sale during her minority—Suit filed by plaintiff as General Attorney pursuant to such agreement was later on withdrawn by defendant—Sale of land by defendant to subsequent vendee—Plea of subsequent vendee in suit filed by plaintiff wag that agreement with plaintiff was contingent upon success in defendant-vendor’s suit for setting aside sale during her minority, which contingency had never occurred, thus, question of performance of agreement would not arise—Validity—Defendant-vendor had withdrawn her suit on asking of plaintiff, who had identified her before Court—Performance of agreement was dependant upon success in suit, which was to be filed pursuant to such agreement between plaintiff and defendant-vendor, which had never happened—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2005 YLR 2163 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS ANAYAT
—Ss. 2(d) & 32—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12— Contingent contract—Consideration—Specific performance of contingent contract—Exercise of disÂcretion—Father had sold property to the plaintiffs and at the same time gifted rest of his
2004 CLD 1462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD INAYAT VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad
—Ss. 31 & 32—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–ÂConstitutional petition—Replication—Contingent contract-ÂRepudiation—Petitioner claimed that her sister was insured with the Insurance Corporation and she had died and the Corporation ha