1. SUMMARY OF CASE: In the case of Advocate Iqbal v. Advocate Zahid, Advocate Iqbal filed a suit for Specific Performance under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, against Advocate Zahid for the sale of a commercial shop. The Plaintiff had paid an advance of PKR 2,000,000 out of the total sale consideration of PKR 10,000,000, with the remaining balance to be paid upon transfer of the registry within 60 days as per the agreement. The Plaintiff arranged the remaining funds and appeared at the Sub-Registrar's office on the agreed date. However, the Defendant failed to appear and instead sold the property to a third party, Mr. Zain, behind the Plaintiff's back. The Plaintiff seeks a decree for Specific Performance, transfer of property registry in his favor, and costs. 2. EVALUATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE (ADVOCATE IQBAL): Advocate Iqbal's case is based on the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Plaintiff had the balance amount ready and had arranged for the transfer of the property registry. The Defendant's failure to appear and intentionally back out of the agreement to sell the property to a third party is a clear violation of the contract. The Plaintiff relies on the precedent set in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Sardar Begum (2015 SCMR 1234), which established that when a valid agreement to sell exists, the seller cannot back out merely to sell the property to someone else for a higher price. 3. EVALUATION OF DEFENDANT'S CASE (ADVOCATE ZAHID): Advocate Zahid's defense is based on the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff failed to pay the remaining balance within the stipulated time, as per Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Defendant waited patiently for the Plaintiff to arrange the funds, but the Plaintiff only surfaced after 90 days, well past the deadline. The Defendant sold the property to a third party to mitigate his own financial losses. The Defense relies on the precedent set in Gul Muhammad v. Muhammad Aslam (2011 SCMR 987), where the Supreme Court held that if a plaintiff fails to pay the sale consideration within the stipulated time, the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted. 4. STATUTORY APPLICATION: The Specific Relief Act, 1877, provides for Specific Performance as a discretionary relief under Section 22. The Contract Act, 1872, provides for the right to cancel the agreement due to the Plaintiff's default under Section 55. The court must consider the precedents set in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Sardar Begum (2015 SCMR 1234) and Gul Muhammad v. Muhammad Aslam (2011 SCMR 987) in its decision. 5. FINAL VERDICT & ORDER: After careful consideration of the arguments, the court finds that the Defendant (Advocate Zahid) has a valid defense under the Contract Act, 1872, and the precedent set in Gul Muhammad v. Muhammad Aslam (2011 SCMR 987). The