Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2283 2011 SLD 2283 2011 YLR 1097
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 140 of 2003, decided on 23rd December, 2010.
KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD AND SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, JJ
Muhammad Alamgir Amjad for Appellant. Malik Azhar Hussain for
Respondent. Date of hearing. 13th December, 2010.

TARIQ GULZAR COTTON INDUSTRIES

VS

ALI ZAIB KHAN TRADERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.2

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.2---Suit for recovery of money---Plaintiff being a partnership firm filed a suit for recovery of disputed amount against defendant on the ground that defendant had neither paid' lease money to the plaintiff nor principal amount of loan and mark up to the bank---Defendant contested suit and filed written statement---Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff---Contention raised by plaintiff was that as per agreement levies/ taxes of the Government Departments including the electricity bills etc. were to be paid by the defendant and that the defendant was also entitled to utilize bank limit available to the plaintiff with the condition) that same would be repaid along with mark up---Validity---Record revealed that factory was leased out to the defendant vide agreement in the year 1998 for the season 1998-99 and one of the terms of the alleged lease was that lessee was to clear the liabilities of the bank; however such contention of plaintiff was not controverted by defendant before the court which amounted to acceptance or admission of said term and that had attained finality---Plaintiff's witnesses had stated that agreement was read over to them before signing and the defendant had signed the said agreement in their presence---Such witnesses remained unshaken on the said stance---One of the defendant's witnesses admitted that the cheques were received by him and the amount of the said cheques were transferred in the defendant's account---Defendant's counsel had also admitted that the stocks/cotton bales of the defendant lying in the factory were pledged by him and consequently auction whereof by the bank was considered in order---Plaintiff through oral as well as documentary evidence had successfully proved the execution of lease agreement and utilization of finance facility by the defendant which they had failed to re­pay---High Court allowed appeal with cost throughout and decreed suit of the plaintiff with direction to the office that the conduct of the Trial Court was unfair and not reflecting independent, impartial and judicial mind, therefore, said might be placed in the personal file of the Presiding…
🔒
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