Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 117,120

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXVI, R.1---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---High court appeal---Fact alleged---Onus to prove---Inspection of site---Local Commission, appointment of---Plaintiffs were aggrieved of transfer of company in question by defendants in the name of a firm to which they were partners---Single Judge of High Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Defendants were not having sufficient funds to purchase company in question, though it was stated that earnest money of Rs.150,000/- was paid from the amounts received from abroad, however a link between the amounts received from abroad and payments made for the purchase of company was not established through documentary evidence---Defendants were not having substantial security to obtain Bank guarantee, which was obtained by plaintiffs through their sources by furnishing security in the shape of property documents, and such aspect was not denied by defendants---Question with regard to purchase of company in question from funds arranged by defendants, when there was an admission that one of the defendants was working as manager in another company of plaintiffs remained unproved---Various documents furnished by plaintiffs with regard to time to time withdrawal of amounts by defendants either from his own funds or from the funds of the Trust or another company of plaintiffs established a link that the funds for purchase of company in question were from two units and when plaintiffs had come to know about the situation that defendants managed to transfer company in question in the name of a firm to which defendants were partners, the plaintiffs became annoyed and thereafter not only the partnership firm was dissolved on their instructions but possession of company in question was also handed over to the Trust owned by plaintiffs---Single Judge of High Court appointed local Commissioner to apprise the Court about affairs of the company and to furnish his report who, after inspection, on the site pointed out a number of anomalies and misappropriations made by defendants---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the and decree passed by…