ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Rev. Application No.S-48 of 2006

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of CMA No.196/2006

Mr. A.M.Mobeen Khan, Advocate for applicants

Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai, Advocate for respondents

Mr. Shaharyar Imdad Awan, AAG.

Date of hearing: 04.10.2019

J U D G M E N T

NAZAR AKBAR J:- This Revision Application was filed on 19.04.2006 against the order of the appellate court dated 18.01.2006 in Civil Appeal No.43/2003 passed by learned District Judge Sukkur, whereby appeal of respondents was allowed and suit of the applicants for Specific Performance of Contract in respect of the suit property bearing S.No.121 (6.18 acres) situated at Old Nauraja Taluka Pano Akil District Sukkur was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the learned appellate court has set-aside judgment of learned trial court without proper appreciation of evidence. He has referred to certain statements of the Respondents from their evidence. According to him such statements are admission of the existence of the sale agreement between the parties. However the brief facts which are fatal to the claim of the applicants for specific performance of agreement dated 13.07.1976 has been discussed by the appellate court. After going through the relevant part of the impugned order the learned counsel for the applicants was unable to dispute the legal position that the power of attorney on the basis of which the agreement of sale has been executed in favour of the applicants by the previous owners was executed by seven persons and out of them Respondent No.3, 4 and 5 were minors at the time of execution of power of attorney. Learned Appellate court has relied upon the case of Ghulam Nabi Vs.Faisal Naveed and another (2003 SCMR 1794) wherein it has been categorically observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that property of minors cannot be dealt with even by the parents without being appointed guardian of their property by the Guardian Court. Admittedly in this very case in 1976 the minors have been shown as executants of the power of attorney through their mother, whereas she has never been appointed as guardian of the minors. Even one of the property bearing S.No.121 was not mentioned in the power of attorney. The suit has been filed in 1990 after 14 years of the execution of the so called agreement of sale through a defective power of attorney without any explanation of delay in seeking enforcement of the sale agreement after 14 years. Despite the fact that in 1988 the property has been sold by respondents. The record does not show any evidence of seeking enforcement of the agreement of sale through letter or legal notice to the owners during more than 14 years since execution of sale agreement. Even otherwise after 29 years of filing of suit for Specific Performance the courts are reluctant in grant of specific performance on the ground of hardship to the owner and, therefore, any discretionary relief to the applicant would be a case of great hardship to the other side.

3. This revision application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA