| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 613 2014 SLD 613 2014 MLD 1380 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 830 of 2013, decided on 28-04-2014. Date of hearing: 16-04-2014.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Mr. Z.U. Mujahid, for the Plaintiff. Ejaz Mubarak Khattak, advocate for Defendant No.1 / DHA. Raja Qasit Nawaz Khan, advocate for Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. ShehanshahHussain, advocate for defendants4 and 5.
Suit No. 830 of 2013, decided on 28-04-2014. Date of hearing: 16-04-2014.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Mr. Z.U. Mujahid, for the Plaintiff. Ejaz Mubarak Khattak, advocate for Defendant No.1 / DHA. Raja Qasit Nawaz Khan, advocate for Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. ShehanshahHussain, advocate for defendants4 and 5.
S. ABDUL MANNAN MUTTAQI
VS
DEFENSE HOUSE AUTHORITY, THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR AND 4 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.21, 42 & 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.13, 25 & 29---Suit for specific performance---Rejection of plaint---Object and scope---Plaintiff sought specific performance of contract on the basis of 'token receipt'---Validity---Said token receipt was undated---Name of witness was mentioned but his signatures were missing---Cheque towards token amount was issued conditionally and amount mentioned therein was not received by defendant---Consent decree and token receipts were admitted documents, same could be taken into consideration for purpose of rejecting plaint---No amount whatsoever had passed from plaintiff to any of the co-owners/defendants---Under S.25 of the Contract Act, 1872 an agreement made without consideration was void unless the same was in writing and registered---Under S.29 of the Contract Act, 1872 agreements, the meaning whereof was not certain or capable of being made certain, were void---Suit, therefore, was barred under Ss.25 and 29 of the Contract Act, 1872---One of the defendants who alone had authority to sell the suit property had not given consent to alleged sale---Under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872 two or more persons were said to have consented when they agreed upon the same thing in the same sense---Suit was also barred under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872---Plaintiff never acquired any right title or interest in the suit property in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---In case of any of the eventualities provided in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. court was not only empowered to reject the plaint but was under obligation to reject even without application from a party---Object of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was to save parties from rigors of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings---Plaint was rejected by High Court. Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 826; Abdul Nasir and another v. Haji Saeed Akbar 2010 SCMR 1770; Raja Ali Shah v. Messrs Essem Hotel Ltd. and others 2007 SCMR 741 and Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif and others PLD 2008 SC 371 rel. THISβ¦
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