| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1049 1992 SLD 1049 1992 CLC 2047 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 37 of 1975, decided on 29th November, 1990
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J. AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J
S. Mahmudul Hassan for Appellant. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque for
Respondent
High Court Appeal No. 37 of 1975, decided on 29th November, 1990
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J. AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J
S. Mahmudul Hassan for Appellant. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque for
Respondent
WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
VS
Ms. SHEIKH MUHAMMAD AMIN & Co.
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 16, 17, 20 & 120---Jurisdiction of High Court---Provisions of Ss. 16, 17 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, although did not apply to High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, but High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit if cause of action had arisen within its local limits of jurisdiction. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----Ss. 19 & 20---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73---Suit for recovery of amount as compensation for breach of contract---Jurisdiction of Court---Suit for recovery of amount for damages filed in Court at place `K' was contested by defendant on ground of jurisdiction of Court contending that contract which was allegedly breached, was entered into between parties at place `L', thus Court at place `L' had jurisdiction to entertain suit---Held, although offer for purchase of goods in dispute was made at place `L' but same was accepted at place `K' thus breach of agreement could be enforced at place `K'---Change in delivery time of goods was granted at Place `K'---Suit filed by plaintiff at place `K' was fully competent and Court at place `K' had jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 73---Suit for recovery of amount as compensation for breach of contract---Repudiation of contract on part of defendant/purchaser had been established and defendant had failed to establish that quality of goods in dispute supplied or offered to supply to him by plaintiff was inferior to that which he had contracted to buy---Repudiation of contract by defendant, was not justified---Breach of contract having been committed unjustifiably by defendant, he was liable to compensate plaintiffs for losses suffered by them on account of such breach. (d) Damages--- -----A party complaining of breach of contract and claiming damages on basis of such breach must ' do every thing within its power to mitigate damages. JUDGMENT SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CJ. ---We propose to dispose of the above-noted two appeals by a common order as they arise from the judgment and decree in Suit No.218 of 1969. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid…
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