Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 530 = 1990 CLC 1200
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.42 of 1988, decided on 16th October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Muhaminad Bashir Msan Jehangir4 J
S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Petitioner. Hamesh Gul Khan for
Respondent.

KARIM BAKHSH---Petitioner

VERSUS

GUL REHMAN---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 , 11

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.Vl, R.17 & S.115---Amendment of written statement at revisional stage-- Two pleas sought to be added by defendant in written statement were "Benami" and "bona fide purchase"---Such pleas were not taken up at the appropriate stage, and if allowed at the revisional stage would change the complexion of the suit and destroy rights of other side which deserved protection by the Court---High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to exercise its discretion in favor of defendant and his application for amendment of written statement was dismissed in circumstances. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 11---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25---Persons competent to contract---Contract by a minor of sale of his property is not valid ---Exception-- Every person of sound mind, who is of the age of majority and who is not disqualified from contracting by law, is competent to contract ---Disqualifications for entering into contract are, minority, insanity and personal law---Contract entered into by a minor was, thus, null and void---Minor is incapable of entering into a valid contract of sale of his property either personally or through his agent who may be even his father---One exception to such incapacity is where a guardian duly appointed, after obtaining valid permission within the contemplation of Guardians and Wards Act may alienate the property of a minor. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 11---Sale-deed executed by a minor or on his behalf, would be void and a nullity in the eyes of law---Such sale-deed cannot be used for conferring any right or title on purchaser. Maxim--- ......Secundum allegata et probata", principle of---A fact has to be alleged by a party before it is allowed to be proved.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.V1, R.2 & O.VIII, R.2---No pleading about a specific plea---Effect---Maxim "Secundum allegata et probata" having been duly incorporated in provisions of O.Vl, R.2 and O.VIII, R.2, C.P.C. the rationale behind those provisions is that if there was no pleading about a specific plea, opposite party would have no opportunity to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register