The Limitation Act 1908
Article 97 of First Schedule r/w
The Contract Act 1872
Section 20
Sale of the disputed property, when the Appellants failed to fulfil their obligation to transfer the possession of the entire sold land to the Respondents, is concerned. When the starting date for computing the three-year limitation period provided under Article 97 of the Act was 19.02.2010, the decree passed by the trial court on 24.03.2010 for return of the price paid for the failed consideration, that is, the deficient 19-Marla land, at the rate of the current market value thereof, was well within time. Supreme Court finds that the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts below do not call for any interference by this Court, and the present appeal is bereft of factual and legal merit. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. .....Muhammad Farooq =VS= Javed Khan, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (SC) 16] ....View Full Judgment

Possession of the shop–
Our short order directed respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs.1,400,000/- in this Court within a period of sixty days which shall then be paid to respondent No. 1. We have already mentioned in our short order that there shall be no extension in time for any reason whatsoever and failure to deposit the amount within this period shall result in dismissal of this appeal and the respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to retain the possession of the shop in his capacity as tenant of the appellants who are the successor-in-interest of respondent No. 2. Within fifteen days of such deposit, the respondent No. 1 was required to handover vacant peaceful possession of the property to the appellants. If the respondent No. 1 fails to do so, the appellants shall be at liberty to file an application before Executing Court, which shall issue writ of possession without notice and put the appellants in possession of the property. .....Haji Baz Muhammad Khan =VS= Noor Ali, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 173] ....View Full Judgment