| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5195 2024 SLD 5195 2024 CLC 1236 |
Islamabad High Court
R.F.A. No.93 of 2013, decided on 19th June, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2022.
R.F.A. No.93 of 2013, decided on 19th June, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2022.
Muhammad Safdar Ali Bhatti and Raja Muhammad Tariq Khan for Appellant. Amir Latif Gill for
Respondent.
R.F.A. No.93 of 2013, decided on 19th June, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2022.
R.F.A. No.93 of 2013, decided on 19th June, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2022.
Muhammad Safdar Ali Bhatti and Raja Muhammad Tariq Khan for Appellant. Amir Latif Gill for
Respondent.
Messrs SECO SAFE WORKS through Owner / Proprietor----Appellant
VERSUS
The CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman----Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 34
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 34---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for recovery of contractual amount along with interest---Payment of interest---Scope---Discretionary powers of the Court---Scope---Appellant (plaintiff / contractor) impugned judgment of Civil Court whereby his suit was decreed without interest---Validity---Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides that where a decree is for payment of money, the Court may "order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit"---In the present case, though it was correctly held by the Civil Court that defendant /respondent (Capital Development Authority) was in breach of its contractual obligation, however, it (Civil Court) erred in not considering that the appellant was entitled to payment of interest on the outstanding amount due and payable as of 25.04.1997 i.e. ten days from the expiry of the 30-day period for submission of invoice after the date fixed for completion of work, which was 15.03.1997---Failure to pay such consideration at the time fixed in accordance with the contract established that respondent/CDA was in breach of its obligation to make such payment---Appellant was out of pocket for over a decade during which period respondent /CDA continued to benefit from goods and services supplied by the appellant without having paid for such goods and services in accordance with the terms of the contract---After the appellant had established as a plaintiff that he was not in default of his obligations under the contract and had completed the supply of goods and services in the period prescribed in the contract i.e. 15.03.1997, and the respondent / CDA on the other hand was in default of its obligation to pay consideration by the period fixed within the…
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