Law:

Section:

(a) Sindh Mining Concession Rules, 2002----------R. 70-----Specific Releif Act (I of 1877), S. 42-----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 16 & O. VII, Rr. 2, 11-----Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2 & 37-----Contract for collection of royalty of surface minerals-----Suit for declaration-----Maintainability-----Contractual liabilities and rights-----Scope-----Plaintiff was given license/contract for collection of said royalty-----Contention of plaintiff was that defendant had refused to pay royalty to the plaintiff whereas defendant contended that event referred by the plaintiff was outside the contract area-----Validity-----Suit for declaratory decree could be instituted with reference to rights and liabilities arising out of an agreement/contract-----Plaintiff would be required to first establish his legal character with reference to contract/agreement or a right as to any property-----Plaintiff could not claim any right, title and interest in the area falling out of contract area-----Party could claim with regard to his rights and liabilities arising out from promise or series of promises alone-----Events happened or happening outside the contract area had no relevance with the obligations of the parties arising out of the contract-----Plaintiff could not make activities out of his contract area-----Plaintiff had no cause of action or case to avoid his liabilities arising out of the contract or to expand the scope, object and even the area of the same-----Plaintiff could not maintain his suit for a declaratory relief with reference to area out of the contract area-----Plaintiff had no cause of action within territorial jurisdiction of the Court-----Court within territorial jurisdiction of which subject matter was situated could entertain the suit of plaintiff-----Action or omission of third party (not party to contract) could not be made a ground to avoid obligation-----Plaintiff had not made any application before the licensing authority-----Suit of plaintiff was not maintainable-----Plaint was rejected in circumstances, however he would be justified to bring his claim for recovery against those who avoided or had not paid such royalty to him…