| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1691 2026 SLD 1691 = 2026 PLJ 34 |
R.F.A. Nos. 28 & 38 of 2024, heard on 3.12.2025.
Presented By: Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, j.
Mr. Kashif Hanif, Advocate for Appellant (in RFA No. 28 of 2024). Mr. Kaleemullah Quresh, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 (in RFA No. 28 of 2024). Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General for State (in RFA No. 28 of 2024). Mr. Aftab Ahmed Lone, Advocate for Appellant (in RFA No. 38 of 2024). Mr. Kaleemullah Quresh, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 (in RFA No. 38 of 2024).. Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General for State (in RFA No. 38 of 2024).. Date of hearing: 3.12.2025.
M/s. DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK LIMITED etc.--Appellants
VERSUS
BALOCHISTAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, QUETTA and others--Respondents
Law:
Section: 96 , O.XLI R. 31
PLJ 2026 Quetta 34 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 96 & O.XLI R. 31--Suit for declaration permanent injunction--Decreed--Agreement to project work awarded--Letter of acceptance--Furnished mobilization advance guarantee--Issuance of termination of letter of work--Submission of fake acceptance letter--Duty of Bank to encash amount of bank guarantees--Commercial instrument-- As per Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/19, appellant/bank was duty bond to en-cash/release/pay aforesaid amount of bank guarantees--The bank guarantees in question are commercial instruments in nature of contracts, which are intended between parties to proceedings to secure compliance with contractor/ Respondent No. 3--Trial Court well appreciated legal question that appellant/bank had issued demand notice to official respondents/plaintiffs under uniformed rules for demand guarantee URDG 2010 Revision, ICC Publication No. 758-- Nowhere in guarantee deeds it is mentioned that a certificate is necessary for activation of guarantee-- It is settled law that when factual controversy was admitted by opposite party, there is no need to prove same under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--Appeals dismissed. [Pp. 40, 41 & 42] A, B & C Judgment Through the instant appeals under Section 96 CPC, the appellant/defendant has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2024 (“the impugned judgment and decree”) passed by the Civil Judge-IX, Quetta, whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in favour. 2. Since RFA Nos. 28 and 38 of 2024, are arising out of the same judgment and decree of the trial Court, whereas, question of law involved in both the matters is also same, therefore, we proposed to decide both the appeals through this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs, Balochistan Integrated Water Resources Management and Development Project (BIWRMDP) through its Project Director, and the Secretary Irrigation Department, filed the present suit seeking declaration, permanent…