Summary: The National Command Authority Foundation (NCAF) entered into an agreement with Sheikh Sarosh Iftikhar, a land developer, for the purchase of land. The agreement was made on 09.02.2021, involving a land purchase of 751 Kanal and 77 square feet for a total consideration of Rs.550 million. An earnest money of Rs.50 million was paid by Iftikhar, along with post-dated cheques for the remaining amount. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Iftikhar invoked the force majeure clause and requested an extension for payment. NCAF terminated the contract on 23.08.2021, leading Iftikhar to file a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi, allowed both applications on 19.07.2023. NCAF appealed the decision.----Issues:Whether the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was justifiable despite the admitted default in payment by the respondent.Whether the force majeure clause invoked by the respondent rendered the contract void.Whether the temporary injunction was appropriately granted pending arbitration.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision petition, affirming the decision to refer the matter to arbitration and grant the temporary injunction.----Application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940:The Court found that the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties justified the application under Section 20. The dispute, including the default in payment and the invocation of the force majeure clause, was deemed appropriate for arbitration.The Court emphasized that questions regarding the reasons for default and the applicability of force majeure are to be determined by the arbitrator, not the Court.---Force Majeure Clause:The Court held that the invocation of the force majeure clause by the respondent did not render the contract void. This issue, like others, was to be addressed by the arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement.----Temporary Injunction:The temporary injunction was justified to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending arbitration. The Court noted that the respondent had already deposited the remaining sale consideration as required.The Court found that the respondent had shown a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss, meeting the requirements for a temporary injunction.----Citations/Precedents:Lahore Stock Exchange Limited vs. Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan) Ltd. and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 48)Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore through Project Director vs. Messrs Crescent Services, Lahore and another (1997 SCMR 1928)Messrs Sadat Business Group Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another (2013 CLD 1451)BNP (Pvt.) Limited vs. Collier International Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (2016 CLC 1772)Industrial Fabrication Company through M.D. vs. Managing Director, Pak American Fertilizer Limited (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 154)Abdul Waheed vs. Additional District Judge and others (PLD 2021 Lahore 453)Samsons Group of Companies vs. Panther Developers and others (2022 CLD 932)Messrs Petrosin Products (Pvt.) Limited through Representative and others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Privatization Commission of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others (2000 MLD 785)-----Summary:The Lahore High Court upheld the Civil Judge?s decision to refer the dispute to arbitration and grant a temporary injunction, reinforcing the principle that arbitration clauses must be honored, and disputes arising from such agreements should be resolved through arbitration. The Court emphasized that contractual disputes, including those involving force majeure claims, should be addressed by arbitrators as specified in the agreement, ensuring that the judicial process does not preempt the arbitration mechanism.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 42---Suit for declaration, partition and possession---Person of unsound mind suffering from chronic mental ailments---Property transaction---Onus on beneficiary to prove that transaction was bona fide---Evidence brought on record had established the factum that the plaintiff suffered from mental ailments and that she remained hospitalized from time to time---Question of unsoundness of mind involved questions of fact and it stood proved on the basis of preponderance of evidence and subsequently concurrently affirmed by two competent courts---Defendants had not denied the mental condition of the plaintiff but one of the siblings (defendant No.1) had taken the stance that this medical condition did not exist when the power of attorney was executed in his favour and transactions relating to the two properties were made---However, the defendants could not discharge the onus to this effect and, therefore, the issue was decided against them---Except for defendant No.1 ( in whose favour the purported power of attorney was executed) no other sibling had entered the witness box---Defendant No.1 had admitted that the sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff, rather, according to his deposition, it was received by defendant No.2---Receipt was also executed by two other siblings---Defendant No.1 himself was a beneficiary of the transfer of the agricultural property while the share in the house was transferred by him pursuant to a power of attorney---Defendant No.1 had made contradictory statements in his deposition regarding the sale of the agricultural land in the name of her mother---Defendant No.1 also failed to bring on record reliable and confidence inspiring evidence to establish that the execution of the power of attorney by a person who suffered from chronic and serious mental ailments and the transactions made on her behalf or attributed to her were bona fide and sustainable- --Suit filed by plaintiff through her son as next of friend was rightly decreed---Petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 27(b)---Specific performance of contract---Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title---In cases involving protection under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 ('Act of 1877') the subsequent vendee who asserts that he is a bona fide purchaser i.e. a transferee for value has to discharge the initial onus---Latter has to discharge the initial onus to the effect that; he had acquired the property for due consideration and thus is a transferee for value; he or she, as the case may be, has to show that the sale was for a price paid to the vendor and not otherwise; there was no dishonesty of purpose of tainted intention to enter into the transaction thereby meaning that the latter had acted in good faith or bonafidely and, lastly, that he/she had taken reasonable care to inquire i.e. had acted as a person of ordinary prudence in making inquiries expected of a purchaser who intends to acquire a good title for the value being paid for. Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others PLD 2011 SC 296 and Gulzar Ahmed and others v. Ammad Aslam and others 2022 SCMR 1433 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Second Appeal---Scope---Concurrent findings are not interfered with under section 100 of the C.P.C. unless the lower courts have misread the evidence on record, or may have ignored a material piece of evidence on record through perverse appreciation of evidence-- -Reappraisal of evidence on record by the second appellate court is not permissible while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the C.P.C. Amjad Sharif Qazi and others v. Salim Ullah Faridi and others PLD 2006 SC 777 Haji Sultan Ahmed through Legal Heirs v. Naeem Raza 1996 SCMR 1729 ref. Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 3210-L of 2023) Raja Imran Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 5181 of 2023) for Petitioners. Navid Ashiq Alvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in both cases). Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2024.

Summary: Background:This case involves a civil revision petition filed by the Province of Punjab (petitioners) against Firm Friends & Engineers Bahawalpur (respondent-contractor) concerning a contractual dispute. The contract, awarded on 16th April 1986, was for the construction of a metalled road from Qaimpur to Baqainwala in Bahawalpur district. Due to an injunctive order delaying the project, the respondent-contractor sought extensions, which were granted with penalties. Despite the extensions, delays persisted, leading to the contractor being declared a defaulter on 24th January 1988. Following disputes over the payment of dues, arbitration was agreed upon but was stalled until 2007 when an award was finally issued. The respondent-contractor sought judicial modification of this award, which the civil court modified in 2012 to include interest payments. Subsequent appeals by the petitioners were dismissed, prompting this civil revision.----Issues:Whether the modifications to the arbitration award by the lower courts were permissible under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Legitimacy of the respondent-contractor's application to the civil court in terms of timeliness and procedural correctness.Assessment of the petitioner?s objections to the lower court decisions, particularly concerning the interest awarded and procedural handling of the case.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court determined:The modifications made to the arbitration award by the lower courts were within legal bounds as the courts have the authority under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to modify an award if necessary conditions are met.The application by the respondent-contractor was timely under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the respondent was not issued a notice by the arbitrators, altering the usual limitation period.The award of interest on the owed amount was justified as the respondent-contractor was entitled to interest from the date payment was due under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.Citations/PrecedentsAscon Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Punjab (2002 SCMR 1662)Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. K.F. Development Corporation Ltd. (2006 SCMR 1555)Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning, Lahore v. Ilam Din (1998 SCMR 110)Several other cases cited were distinguished based on their facts or applicability, affirming that the principles established did not directly apply to the issues at hand in this specific revision petition.

Summary: '' i). Distinction between a suit for cancellation and suit for declaration. ii). Applicability of Articles 91 and 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1908") iii). Scope and import of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872"). iv). Agreement to sell (Exhibit-P1) which was produced in the statement of learned counsel for the "appellant" is not permissible at all.'' Background:The case involves Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) against Babar Sultan Jadoon (respondent) and three other respondents in a legal dispute concerning property transactions that stem from a power of attorney and subsequent sales agreements. Abdul Ghafoor, through a general power of attorney, authorized Babar Sultan Jadoon, who subsequently executed sale deeds of the said property in favor of his brothers (respondents No.2 & 3). Ghafoor contested these deeds and sought their cancellation, claiming misrepresentation and fraud, leading to the initial suit's dismissal by a Civil Judge, prompting the appeal to the Lahore High Court.----Issues:Validity of the sale deeds and general power of attorney based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation.Whether the plaintiff (Ghafoor) was entitled to various compensations and recoveries as outlined in his suit.Applicability of statutes from the Limitation Act concerning the timing of the suit.The legitimacy of Ghafoor's claims under specific articles of the Contract Act regarding the irrevocability of the power of attorney.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment. It was determined that:The power of attorney was legitimately executed and became irrevocable because it was coupled with an interest, confirmed by payment and agreements related to the property.The suit filed by Ghafoor was time-barred under the applicable statutes from the Limitation Act.There was overwhelming evidence supporting the respondents' execution of the sale agreements as per the authorized power of attorney.Claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by Ghafoor were not substantiated adequately, thus affirming the legal standing of the sale deeds.----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Izzat vs. Allah Ditta (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 165)Fida Muhammad vs. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 341)Muhammad Ajaib vs. Mughal Hussain and 2 others (2004 YLR 690)Media Max (Pvt) Ltd. through Chief Executive vs. Army Communication Pvt. Ltd. through Chief Executive and another (PLD 2013 Sindh 555)Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212)Imam Din and 4 others vs. Bashir Ahmed and 10 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418)S.K. Shah through LRs vs. Jamaluddin and others (2017 SCMR 626)Muhammad Aslam vs. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 213)Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749)

Summary: Background:In the case Muhammad Siddique (deceased) through L.Rs. versus Muhammad Yaqoob & others, the Lahore High Court examined a civil revision directed against judgments and decrees of the lower courts which favored the specific performance of a contract concerning a property transaction. The dispute revolved around an oral agreement to sell a property of 10-Kanals and 07-Marlas, for which a partial payment was made, but complications arose regarding the guardianship certificate needed for registration. The property was later sold to another buyer, Muhammad Siddique, leading to the current legal battle.-----Issues:Whether the oral agreement for the sale of the property was valid and enforceable.Whether the respondent's execution of a subsequent registered sale deed to a third party (Muhammad Siddique) was lawful.Whether the petitioner (legal representatives of Muhammad Siddique, the deceased) is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior unregistered sale agreement.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the lower courts' decisions which had decreed specific performance for the respondent (Muhammad Yaqoob). The court determined that the evidence regarding the oral sale transaction was inconsistent and unreliable. It noted discrepancies in the dates and particulars of the transaction and found that the respondent had not sufficiently proven the existence or terms of the oral agreement. Additionally, the court recognized the rights of Muhammad Siddique as a bona fide purchaser for value who bought the property without notice of any prior claims, thus granting him protection under the relevant property transfer laws.----Citations/Precedents:Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others (2021 SCMR 642): Discussed requirements for specifics in documenting oral agreements.Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others (2021 SCMR 1241): Addressed the rights of bona fide purchasers for value without notice.Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877: These laws provide protections to bona fide purchasers, emphasizing the necessity of a valid and lawfully registered subsequent sale over an unproved oral transaction.-----Quote: ''Oral sale transaction was not proved on the basis of evidence on record; the Petitioner as bona fide purchaser of the suit property for consideration without notice was entitled to protection accorded to him under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Accordingly, the concurrent Judgments & Decrees are reversed.''

Summary: Background: In 2008, Pak-Telecom Mobile Limited (PTML) and Dynamic Engineering Services (Dynamic) entered into a contractual agreement to identify and acquire sites for PTML's Base Transceiver Stations (BTS) and obtain necessary No Objection Certificates (NOCs). The payment terms were outlined, with later modifications made in a second agreement in 2008. In 2009, PTML introduced a third agreement, which Dynamic challenged, claiming it was signed under coercion. Dynamic sought a declaration that the third agreement was void, recovery of Rs.75,377,250, and a permanent injunction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the third agreement (dated 05.04.2009) was the result of coercion and undue influence. 2- Whether Rs.75,377,250 was outstanding from PTML to Dynamic for services provided. 3- Whether the suit was maintainable without a claim for the cancellation of the third agreement. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court ruled in favor of PTML, setting aside the trial court's decision that had supported Dynamic's claims. The court held that: Dynamic failed to prove the third agreement was signed under coercion, as no specific allegations or evidence were presented to substantiate the claim. Dynamic admitted to receiving a full settlement of Rs.9,539,000, contradicting their claim for additional recovery. Since Dynamic only sought declaratory relief without a request for cancellation of the third agreement, the suit was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. As a result, the court dismissed Dynamic's suit and allowed PTML's appeal. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Dadabhay Cement Industries Ltd. vs. National Development Finance Corporation, PLD 2002 SC 500 Nasir Ali vs. Muhammad Asghar, 2022 SCMR 1054 Dilber Hussain Hashmi vs. Muslim Commercial Bank, 2001 SCMR 265 Faisal Fabrics Limited vs. Town Committee, Khurrianwala, 2000 CLC 4 Hamida Begum vs. Murad Begum, PLD 1975 SC 624 Federation of Pakistan vs. Javaid Nasim, PLD 1994 Lahore 303 Ijaz Ahmed Khan vs. Jahanzeb Khan, 2016 CLC Note 128 Abdullah vs. Amjad Ali Shah, 2003 SCMR 894

Summary: BackgroundIn the Lahore High Court case, F.A.O. No. 79041 of 2023, Punjab Mashhad Meat Complex and another (appellants) challenged an order dated 24.11.2023. The order in question rejected the appellants' application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. This application sought to stay proceedings in a suit filed by Mashhad Meat Industrial Complex (respondent) for recovery of significant costs related to a business partnership and to direct the parties to resolve their disputes via arbitration, per the arbitration clause in their partnership agreement.-----Issues:Whether the appellants had taken steps in the legal proceedings that would preclude them from invoking the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement.Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration as stipulated in the partnership agreement under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the Commercial Court had erred in its interpretation and application of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Lahore High Court found that the actions taken by the appellants did not constitute a waiver of their right to arbitration. Specifically, the court determined that merely seeking an adjournment to file a written statement did not display an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit rather than arbitration.The appeal was allowed, and the order by the Commercial Court was set aside. The proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent were stayed, thus directing the parties to proceed with arbitration in line with the terms of their partnership agreement.-----Citations/Precedents:Pakistan International Airlines Corporation versus Messrs Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 553) established that an adjournment request to file a written statement is a prima facie step in proceedings but does not necessarily indicate an intention to waive the right to arbitration.Rachappa Guruadappa, Bijapur versus Gurusiddappa Nuraniappa and others (1990 MLD 1383) stated that not every step in legal proceedings manifests an intention to abandon arbitration rights.Dunichand Sons and Co. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (A.I.R. 1962 Calcutta 541) and Badsha Meah Sowdagar versus Nurul Haq and others (PLD 1967 Dacca 250) explored the nuances of what constitutes a step in legal proceedings regarding arbitration.Messrs Pakistan Associates Construction Ltd. versus WAPDA and another (1989 MLD 203) highlighted that routine procedural requests do not necessarily indicate a waiver of arbitration rights.POSCO International Corporation through Authorized Officer versus Rikans International through Managing Partner / Director and 4 others (PLD 2023 Lahore 116) and S. M. Hashim Hussain versus Pakistan Defence Officer?s Housing Authority (2005 SCMR 1782) emphasized the contractual obligations to arbitrate disputes and the negative implications of bypassing such agreements.

Summary: Issues:Whether the award by the Arbitrator, modified from the Adjudicator's decision, was properly brought on record and could be made a rule of court.The impact of the Committee's partial payment towards the decree on its ability to challenge the award.The appropriateness of the executing court's decisions, considering the alleged coercive measures leading to partial payment by the Committee.The legal standing and liability of the Committee in the execution of the decree, especially in light of administrative changes and mergers affecting the Committee's legal identity and obligations.-------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the Committee's petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court found that:The Arbitrator was appointed with mutual consent, and the Committee had ample opportunity to challenge any procedural missteps or partiality during the arbitration process but did not do so effectively.The partial payment made by the Committee towards the decree undermines its challenge to the validity of the decree itself.The Committee's objections regarding procedural issues, like the alleged improper recordation of the arbitration award, were found to be without merit, particularly given the Committee's active participation in the objection process.The Court criticized the Committee's sluggish legal representation and procedural delays, attributing them to bureaucratic inefficiency rather than legitimate legal grievances.------Citations/Precedents:Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940: Pertains to the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator upon application by a party.Section 16 of the Arbitration Act 1940: Relates to the power of the court to remit matters back to the arbitrator for reconsideration.Silver Star Insurance Co. Ltd. Lahore v. Messrs Kamal Pipes Industries, Lahore and another (2023 CLD 1342): Discusses the consequences of a judgment-debtor acknowledging and partially satisfying a decree.Province of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Juman and another (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 908): Another precedent regarding the effects of partial decree satisfaction.Durga Prosad Chamria and another v. Sewkishendas Bhattar and others (PLD 1949 Privy Council 187): Addresses the court's reluctance to interfere with an arbitrator's award for minor legal discrepancies.Ashfaq Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation Multan and another (1984 SCMR 597): Supports the principle of upholding arbitration awards barring significant procedural or legal flaws.Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2010 SCMR 5): Stresses the high standard required to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revisional jurisdiction.

Summary: Background:CRTG- Matracon JV, the petitioner, challenged the order of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) which dismissed their application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The dispute arose from a construction contract for a high-rise building in Islamabad, where the petitioner claimed an exchange rate uplift in the contract price due to legislative changes. This claim was initially rejected by the Engineer under Clause 67.1 of the General Conditions of the Contract. The petitioner sought arbitration as per Clause 67.2 but failed to appoint an arbitrator by mutual consent, leading to the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.Issues:Whether the dispute regarding the exchange rate uplift claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the construction contract.The appropriateness of the ADJ's examination of the contract's clauses in determining the arbitrability of the dispute.Whether the petitioner's claim regarding exchange rate variation due to legislative changes was valid under the terms of the Contract.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Islamabad High Court held that the ADJ incorrectly delved into the merits of the dispute, which was reserved for the arbitrator to decide. The Court clarified that under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the civil court's role is merely to ascertain the existence of an arbitration agreement and the parties' failure to appoint an arbitrator. The court is not to interpret the contract clauses to determine the validity or otherwise of the claims in dispute.The Court noted that the dispute resolution clause (Clause 67.1 titled "Settlement of Disputes") was broadly framed, encompassing any disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract, including the validity of claims based on exchange rate variations due to legislative changes. It was emphasized that the distinction between contract price variations due to legislative changes and ordinary market-based currency fluctuations is significant and reserved for the arbitrator's determination.Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner's application was restored before the ADJ for the appointment of an arbitrator as per the Arbitration Act.----Citations/Precedents:Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940The Union of Indian vs. Mangaldas N. Varma ((1958) 2 MLJ 16)Union of India vs. Om Parkash (1976 AIR 1745)Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering, Science and Technology v. Messrs Hassan Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1998 CLC 485)AJ Corporation v. Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited (2013 CLD 636)

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----Ss. 8, 18(b), 19 & 53-A---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53-A---Agreement to sell immovable property---Possession delivered---Vendee seeking specific performance---Vendor lacking title---Reciprocal obligations and bar to enforcement---Legal consequences---Vendee, after paying part consideration and receiving possession, sought specific performance of agreement---Vendor admitted absence of title to the property at the time of sale---Trial and appellate courts refused specific performance, holding that both vendor and vendee failed to establish valid title or ownership chain---Possession, despite being given, did not confer enforceable rights under S.53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in absence of full payment of consideration---Held, no party can claim specific performance when title is imperfect and material contractual terms remain unfulfilled---However, where vendee is placed in possession and vendor fails in title, clause of indemnity under agreement becomes enforceable, falling within the scope of S.19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.----Cited cases: • Mst. Resham Bibi v. Lal Din PLD 1971 SC 755• Taj Wali Shah v. Bakhti Zaman 1998 SCMR 443• Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain 2003 SCMR 1087• Syed Hakeem Shah (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Idrees 2017 SCMR 316(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O.XLI, Rr. 25 & 33---Remand---Omission to frame material issue---Appellate court’s discretion---Ownership dispute not settled by trial court---Held, appellate court may frame omitted issue essential to rights of parties and direct trial court to record additional evidence---Where no sufficient evidence exists on record regarding title of vendor, remand is appropriate to resolve such factual determination---Trial court failed to ascertain ownership despite it being critical to relief sought in both suits---Remand ordered with framed issues on ownership and vendee’s right to indemnification under agreement.Cited cases: • N.W.F.P. Government through Collector, Abbottabad v. Abdul Ghaffar Khan PLD 1990 SC 353• Muhammad Dervaish Al-Gilani v. Muhammad Sharif 2003 SCMR 1897(c) Contract Act (IX of 1872) ----Contractual terms---Time as essence---Reciprocal penalties---Breach by vendor and vendee---Agreement contained clause rendering contract void and prescribing penalties if either party failed to perform within stipulated 35 days---Trial court correctly held that obligations were reciprocal, and vendor’s failure to show readiness to execute sub-lease or establish title suspended vendee’s obligation to pay balance consideration---Such clauses operate automatically where default is admitted and no title is proven.(d) Administration of justice ----Adjudication on merits---Requirement to prove title in specific performance suits---Plaintiff claiming relief of specific performance must demonstrate valid, existing title to property---Admissions regarding lack of ownership fatal to claim---Mere possession or execution of agreement without ownership renders both vendor and vendee's claims untenable.----Disposition: Appeals and revision were not finally decided; case remanded under O.XLI, R.25, C.P.C. to the trial court to determine:(i) Whether the vendor (Muhammad Yousuf Polani) had valid title to the property at the time of the agreement;(ii) If title is found deficient, whether vendee (Bhart Lal) is entitled to indemnification and to what extent under Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale.