Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3318 2003 SLD 3318 2003 PLD 45
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 206 of 1994, decided on 30th July, 2002
WAHID BUX BROHI, J
Raja Sher Muhammad Khan for Plaintiff. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Defendant.

Haji RIAZ AHMED MIR --Plaintiff

VS

Brig. (Retd.) Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF--Defendant

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 16 & 20--.Suit filed at K for recovery of sale consideration paid- for purchase of property situated at G---Validity---Agreement to sell was executed at G---Sale consideration was partly sent to defendant from K and was partly paid to him at K---Oral agreement for refund of sale consideration was made between parties at K---Cause of action spread over component facts relating to payments of money made by plaintiff at several times--­Factually part of cause of action had arisen at K, where plaintiff could file present suit and Courts at G alone would not have jurisdiction on subject­-matter---Plaintiff for recovery of money had assumed the status of creditor and defendant as debtor--- Plaintiff could file suit at K on the basis of principle that creditor must follow the debtor. Agricides v. Ali Agro 1989 CLC 58; Muhammad Yasin v. Muhammad Abdul Aziz PLD 1993 SC 395; Shahzad Humayun v. Muhammad Akram 1991 MLD 530; Suzuki Motorcycle Pakistan Ltd. v. Tariq Jawed 2000 CLC 1093; Muhammad Yasin v. Ch. Abdul Aziz PLD 1993 SC 395 and 1992 CLC 2047 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20(c)---Cause of action---Not safe to refer to pleas taken in written statement by defendant and assign importance to same, while finding out bundle of facts constituting cause of action. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20(c)---Cause of action---Even a fraction of cause of action is a part of cause of action. Abdul Ghafoor v. Natural and Beverages Ltd 2001 YLR 3243 fol. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 117 & 118---Burden of proof---Word against word ---Effect--­Defendant had denied plaintiff's version---Burden was on plaintiff to furnish cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove his plea---Plaintiff could not produce any other oral or documentary evidence except his word recorded in examination-in-chief---Plaintiff, held, could not be said to have produced such evidence as to establish his plea beyond doubt." (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 55 & 74---Compensation for breach of contract, when time was not essence of contract---Forfeiture of sale consideration by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492