Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1568 2010 SLD 1568 2010 YLR 628
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 208 of 2005, decision & hearing Dated: 22-01-2009.
SYED ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rizwan Mushtaq Ch. Asstt. A.G.
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Wahid Ch.

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

VS

KHYBER INTERNATIONAL PRINTERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.2

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 17

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 173

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 10

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.2---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.10---Suit for recovery of amount---Plaintiff, who was registered contractor of defendant, supplied the printed banners on the oral order issued by the defendant in connection with the eradication of Malaria and Aids---Said items allegedly were entered in the stock register of the defendant---Payment having not been made to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount as price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff along with damages---Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit---Director Purchases of defendant had acknowledged the claim of the plaintiff---Defendant who had pleaded that Director Purchases had made an obliging statement to unduly support the claim of the plaintiff, could not substantiate his plea on record---Defendant's case was not that oral agreement was not made with free consent of the parties or the parties were not competent to contract or consideration of the contract was not lawful; or its object was not lawful or the oral agreement was otherwise void---Section 10 of Contract Act, 1872, did not exclude an oral contract from being enforced, although in case of an oral contract, clearest and more satisfactory evidence, would be demanded by the court---Evidence produced by the plaintiff; had outweighed the evidence of the defendant---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff---Impugned and decree passed by the Trial Court, having been passed after thorough examination of evidence of the parties, did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Defendant/ debtor had failed to make out a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence to call for interference in appeal.? Bhikrai Jaipuria v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 113; Yelamanchili Siva Panchaksharamma v. Yelamanchili Chhinabbayi, AIR 1967 SC 207; Province of Punjab through District Collector and 2 others v. Messrs Sajid Traders 2006 YLR 484; Maqsood and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31; Khan Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and 2 others PLD 1973 SC 160; Malik Muhammad Akram v. Khuda Bakhsh 2000 CLC 759; Ali Muhammad Khan v.…
🔒
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