Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2584 2020 SLD 2584 2020 CLC 2034
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.665 of 2016, decided on 28th September, 2020.
MASUD ABID NAQVI, JUSTICE, JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented by 6 heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550 foll. Malik Ejaz Hussain Gorchha for Appellant.
Respondents ex-parte.

PETITIONER(S): ALAMDAR ENGINEERING

VS

RESPONDENT(S): DONGFONG ELECTRIC CORPORATION AND OTHERSS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIX, R.1---Suit for recovery of damages and permanent injunction---Subscription and verification of pleadings---Scope---Suit for recovery of damages with permanent injunction filed by appellant was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff/CEO failed to prove his appointment as a duly authorized person as the plaintiff was a private limited company and the suit was filed in the capacity of CEO which was against the spirit of law---Validity---Suit on behalf of company by a person was not competent unless he was so authorized by a resolution passed by a companys Board of Directors---Impugned was passed in consonance with the spirit of law and did not call for any interference---Appeal was dismissed. The Central Bank of India, Ltd., Lahore v. Messrs Taj ud Din Abdur Rauf and others 1992 SCMR 846 and Rahat and Company through Syed Naveed Hussain Shah v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Statutory Corporation, Finance and Trade Centre through Secretary/Chief Executive Officer 2020 CLC 872 rel. ORDER The instant Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the suit for recovery and damages with permanent injunction filed by the Appellant was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the Appellant filed a suit for recovery of withheld amount Rs.14,404,163/- of the work done along with damages of Rs.20 million against the Respondents. After recording of evidence of parties, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 on the ground that the suit had to be filed through duly authorized person. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the Appellant through RFA No.1080 of 2013 which was allowed and matter was remanded to trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2014 with certain directions to decide it in accordance with law. Pursuant to aforesaid remand order, the trial Court, after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment, hence the present appeal. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Record reveals that a suit before the trial Court was filed by the Appellant through…
🔒
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