| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2520 2006 SLD 2520 2006 SCMR 693 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.795-L of 2002, decision dated: 16-07-2004 (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-1-2002 passed in Civil Revision No.1501 of 2000)
MAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No.795-L of 2002, decision dated: 16-07-2004 (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-1-2002 passed in Civil Revision No.1501 of 2000)
MAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
CANTONMENT BOARD, KHARIAN through Executive OfficeR
VS
Messrs JAFRI TRADING CORPORATION through Managing Partner
Law:
Section:
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 34---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Arbitration clause, non-invoking of---Principle of estoppel---Applicability-Raising of new plea before High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Suit for recovery of money was decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiff and and decree was maintained b} Appellate Court---Defendant filed revision in High Court and raised plea that plaintiff, instead of filing civil suit, should have invoke(, arbitration clause for recovery of disputed amount---High Court dismissed the revision petition on merits as well as being barred by limitation---Validity---High Court had rightly observed that the defendant was estopped to raise the plea that plaintiff should have invoked the arbitration clause instead of filing suit for recovery as the plea was not substantiated by his own conduct who participated in the suit for recovery and appeal arising therefrom and for the first time raised such plea before High Court---Revision petition before High Court was time-barred and no plausible explanation could be offered in High Court for condonation of delay as such High Court was right to dismiss the same as barred by time---Defendant failed to point out any legal infirmity or flaw in the warranting interference of Supreme Court under Art.185(3) of the Constitution---Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mehdi Khan Chohan, Advocate. Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th July, 2004. JUDGMENT MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11-1-2002, whereby Civil Revision No.1501 of 2000 of the petitioner was dismissed and concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below were upheld. Brief facts are that the petitioner-Cantonment invited tenders for construction of Retaining Wall near I.J. Colony, Kharian Cantt. The respondent's tender was accepted, the agreement was executed on 28-2-1982 andβ¦
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