| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 578 1993 SLD 578 1993 SCMR 441 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.781 of 1990, decision dated: 29-11-1992, hearing DATE : 10-11-1992. (From the judgment dated 15-4-1990 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.FA. No.120 of 1983)
NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.781 of 1990, decision dated: 29-11-1992, hearing DATE : 10-11-1992. (From the judgment dated 15-4-1990 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.FA. No.120 of 1983)
NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Syed AHMAD SAEED KIRMANI
M/s. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., ISLAMABAD
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O.VIII, R.6---Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.2(2)---Suit for recovery of loan in summary jurisdiction---Claim of set off by defendant--- Essentials---Defendant setting up claim of set-off in defence which exceeded amount of loan---Trial Court accepting claim of set-off, awarded claimed amount to defendant minus the loan amount---High Court in appeal set aside decree relating to set-off on the ground that defendant had not pleaded specifically claim of damages, and in absence of any pleading, such damages could not have been allowed as set-off---Validity---Party claiming setoff had to comply with the rules of pleading contained in Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Defendant by claiming set-off of an amount which far exceeded the claim of plaintiff, in effect pleaded to write off plaintiff's claim and claimed a decree for the balance amount---Claim of set-off, was thus, in the nature of written statement as also a plaint (counter-claim) for purposes of claiming the balance amount---Rules of pleading, therefore, should be followed in all cases including cases where damages were claimed as set-off---Claimant (defendant) must state the particulars and basis of the claim and if same was qualified, basis of such qualification as well---Mere statement that due to breach committed by defaulting party claimant was entitled to damages, would not be proper pleading---Defendant's pleadings and evidence being vague and unspecific regarding his claim for set-off, same could not be decreed in his favour. Naimat Ali v. Jairam Dass PLD 1983 SC 5 and Domsalla and another v. Bart (Trading as A.B. Construction) and others (1969) 3 All E.R. ref. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S.73---Breach of contract---Essentials---Party claiming damages due to breach of contract, must establish the contract, the breach thereof and the extent of damages---Onus would be on the person pleading breach of contract and without discharging same, he could not succeed---Only such damages could be recovered which would naturally arise in the usual course of things from such breach or the parties at the time of making the contract knew…
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