| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 644 1992 SLD 644 1992 SCMR 1174 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 784 of 1990, decision dated: 10-02-1992(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-3-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in F.A.O. No.1.83/80)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 784 of 1990, decision dated: 10-02-1992(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-3-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in F.A.O. No.1.83/80)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Messrs KADIR MOTORS (REGD). RAWALPINDI
Messrs NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--S. 28---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider the extent and scope of S.28 of the Contract Act, 1872 regarding the ouster of jurisdiction of Courts by the consent of the parties and the question of interpretation of a clause in the agreement which related to the ouster of jurisdiction of the Courts by consent. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---S. 20---Scope and application of S.20---Suit for. recovery---Plaint showed that defendant resided at Karachi and their principal office was also located at Karachi---Original contract between the' parties which had given rise to the filing of the suit for recovery was negotiated and entered into at Karachi--Primarily the Courts at Karachi had jurisdiction to try the suit according to S.20(1)(c), C.P.C. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 28---Object of S:z8, Contract Act, 1872---Parties cannot be restrained from entering into an agreement to get their disputes decided by a particular Court of competent jurisdiction for their convenience and avoidance of unnecessary objections to the territorial jurisdiction of Courts---Such an agreement would be legal and not hit by S.28 and parties were bound to follow the same: Section 28 of the Contract Act provided that every agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is void. There is nothing in the provision to restrain the parties from entering into an agreement to get their- disputes decided by a particular Court of competent jurisdiction for their convenience and avoidance of unnecessary objections to the territorial jurisdiction of Courts. The intention behind section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 is that all those agreements which restrain a person to enforce his rights under a contract by usual legal proceedings in the ordinary Tribunals are void. It obviously implies that a party cannot be restrained to enforce his right in ordinary Court of law but if by mutual agreement between the parties a particular Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is selected for the determination of their dispute, there appears to be nothing wrong or…
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