Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 1527 1987 SLD 1527 1987 SCMR 660
Supreme Court of Pakistan

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

1987 SCMR 660 Present: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ ABDUR RASHID--Petitioner Vs SULTAN AHMED and 5 others--Respondents Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 664 of 1976, decided on 2nd September, 1981. (On appeal from the and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-5-1976, in R.S.A. No.256 of 1972). Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal granted to consider correct and true construction of the agreement between the parties, terms whereof as admitted by both parties were either incorrect or camauflaged in various material particulars and which agreement in those circumstances had to be construed and interpreted in that background and not with reference to its apparent tenor. Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Leave is granted to inter alia consider as to what is the correct and true construction of the agreement between the parties in this case, terms whereof, as admitted by both sides, were either incorrect or camouflaged in various material particulars, and which agreement in these circumstances had to be construed and interpreted in that background and not with reference to its apparent tenor. If so construed, it is submitted, that it will come out to be a deal in which principal relief to be obtained by the plaintiff was the return of his loan (which was nothing but a past balance due from the defendant /petitioner on taking accounts in respect of a partnership business between the parties) and there was, in fact, no cash payment at the time of the execution of the agreement and the recital in the agreement and connected receipt in that respect were all camauflaged which were got introduced by the plaintiffs /respondents. If examined in that way then the intention is clear from the last sentence of agreement which stated that:- It is submitted, that this will show, that…
🔒
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