Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 136, 115

(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)  S. 136Evidence in regard to statements of auctioneer at time of auctionInadmissibleSuch evidence, however, brought on record without objection by parties hence could. as such, be put in scales. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S.115EstoppelAppellants; plaintiffs, claiming, to be auction purchasers of sheds in auction last year, also taking part in auction held in following year in respect of same shelters Plaintiffs proved to have protested against subsequent auction and pleading to have taken part only to protect their interest and to avoid complicationsPlaintiff's taking; part in subsequent auction being only by force of circumstances and under compulsion, held, cannot operate as estoppel. [Estoppel]. Dates of hearing : 9th, 21st, 24th October ; 12th and 14th November, 1979.                                                                                                               JUDGMENT ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J.By this single judgment we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 186, 187, 188, 189 and 201 of 1970, arising out of five separate suits filed by the 5 appellants on the Original Side of this Court bearing Nos. 97 to 101 of 1967, disposed of and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a consolidated judg ment dated 25th May, 1971. The 5 suits as well as the present five appeals arise from similar transactions and involve common questions of law and fact. Before the learned Single Judge all the five suits were consolidated by an order dated 2nd April 1970, and the evidence was common. 2. We have heard Mr. Mohsin Tayabally and Mr. Nafisuddin for the appellants. While the respondent Karachi Port Trust was represented before us by Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, the remaining two respondents, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property as also the City Deputy Collector, Karachi, were represented before us…