Case Details

Citation(s)
SLG 1911 (2019) 123 SLD 1911 (2019) 123 CLD 888
Sindh High Court
IInd Appeal No. 85 and C. M. As. Nos. 7103 and 7104 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 22-11-2018.
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sikandar Khan
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Razzaq

MESSRS PAKISTAN REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH SECRETARY

VS

TRUSTEE OF PORT OF KARACHI (KPT)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXIX,R.1

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXIX, R. 1---Suit for declaration on behalf of company---Recording of evidence---Procedure---Suit was dismissed on the ground that the person who appeared in the witness box for evidence on behalf of company was not an authorized person---Validity---Defendant in written statement had not challenged the maintainability of the suit for want of mandatory requirement of O. XXIX, R. 1, C.P.C.---Even issue for maintainability of suit was not framed by the courts below---Plaintiff-company was not required to hold a meeting of Board of Directors to decide by a Resolution as to who and how many would be witnesses in a particular suit to appear on behalf of the company---Courts below had erred in law while passing the impugned s and decrees---Matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to decide the same afresh on merit on the basis of evidence available on record--- Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. v. VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge and others 2010 CLC 599 ref. AIR 1991 Delhi 25 and Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (Represented by 6 Heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550 distinguished. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: NAZAR AKBAR, J.--- This IInd Appeal is directed against the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 937/2008 as well as Civil Appeal No.163/2014. The appellant's suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction was dismissed by the II-Senior Civil Judge, West Karachi by Judgment dated 31.5.2013 on the ground that suit was hit by Order XXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. and the appellate Court by judgment dated 30.4.2014 endorsed it. 2. To be very precise, the trial Court has framed following seven issues and recorded evidence of both the sides. 1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to hearing before the renewal of lease at increased rate? 2. Whether the defendant has power to fix rate of rent for renewal of lease under law and contact? 3. Whether the defendant can verbally increase the lease rent at only level? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to renewal of lease @ the previous rate/or with reasonable increase? 5. Whether the rate of rent offered by…
🔒
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