Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 306 of 1979, heard on 19th February, 1985.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑3‑1979, passed in R.S.A. No. 849 of 1977).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S. 55‑‑Sale of goods‑ Non‑payment of price‑‑Suit for recovery of price/ possession of goods‑ Decree against buyer, upheld, in second appeal‑‑Plea raised that after having sold goods, respondent could only sue for recovery of price and not for possession of goods‑‑Prayer in suit/decree being for recovery of goods or price in alternative, and buyer being ready to pay price, petitioner‑buyer, held, free to discharge his liability by paying price to respondent in execution of decree‑‑Matter requiring no interference by Supreme Court, petition dismissed.

Mirza A. Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1985.

‑‑Syed Ashfaq Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, 18‑3‑1979, dismissing his R.S.A. Syed Ashfaq Hussain petitioner and Syed Tahir Hussain (respondent herein) are first cousins inter se. The dispute between them relates to a tractor. It was purchased by Syed Tahir Hussain from one Abdul Razzaq P.W. 1. In token of the receipt of the consideration Abdul Razzaq P.W. had executed a receipt (Exh. D/1) in his favour. Syed Tahir Hussain then sold the tractor to Syed Ashfaq Hussan, petitioner for Rs.5,000 and delivered the tractor to him. Syed Ashfaq Hussain, however, did not pay him the abovesaid amount. Syed Tahir Hussain was, therefore, constrained to file a suit against him for possession of the tractor and for the recovery of Rs.5,000 in the alternative.

2. The suit was contested; issues were framed; evidence was led by the parties and the suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 17‑7‑1977. He then filed an R.S.A., which was also dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

3. The main contention pressed by the petitioner's counsel was that after having sold the tractor Syed Tahir Hussain respondent could only sue for recovery of the price of the tractor i.e. Rs.5,000 and not for the possession of the tractor. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the above said amount.

4. We notice that the relief sought by the petitioner was granted by the trial Court in the following words:‑---

"In the light of my findings on Issues Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of the suit tractor or of Rs.5,000 in the alternative as prayed is decreed in his favour and against the defendant. Parties to bear their own costs of the suit."

Ashfaq Hussain petitioner is, therefore, free to discharge his liability by paying Rs.5,000 to the respondent, in execution of the decree and the matter does not, therefore, seek interference by this Court.

In view of the matter the petition is dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.