Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 551 1992 SLD 551 1992 SCMR 592
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.501 of 1990, decision dated: 22-12-1991, hearing DATE : 7-12-1992. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23-12-1989 passed in R.SA. No.101/88)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, 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

ABDUR RAUF and others

KHURSHID ALI and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--O. XII, R. 2---Direct appeal ---Condonation of delay---Application for condonation of delay by a Mufassil lawyer was supported by an application urging that he was under the impression that the could be challenged in the Supreme Court within 60 days and that the mistake on his part was not deliberate---Held, since the Mufassil lawyer would not have known that a direct appeal lay in the case, delay was condoned. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)-- ----S. 2(h)---Interpolation of written agreement---Effect---If a written contract has been wrongfully altered in favour of one party, the other has the election to repudiate it, accept it in its original form or to accept the altered form, but not a mix of both---If the alteration is material, the alteration impairs the contract---Conditions. If while a written contract remain executory, a party unauthorized so alters it as to vary its legal effect to his advantage, whether he meditates a fraud or not--or if, with the positive intent to defraud, he makes in it any alteration whatever--or, if another thus alters it under authority from him--or, if one to whose custody he simply commits it makes in it a material alteration advantageous to him--then, at the election of the other party, he is estopped from relying upon it in a Court of justice. Plainly, in reason, after a party has intentionally altered the contract, thus abandoning it in its original form, he cannot before the tribunal reclaim what in pais he had cast aside; and he cannot rely on the new form of words, because to them the other party had not consented. Though this proposition is a little less broad than the doctrine above stated, so that on it not quite all the doctrine finds support, the residue rests well on the further reason that, without it there can be no adequate protection of the honest parties against the frauds of the dishonest. When a written contract has been wrongfully altered in the interest of one party, the other should have his election to repudiate it, to maintain it in its old form, or to accept the altered form; but not, with knowledge of the facts, to do the one as to some of its stipulations and the other…
🔒
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