2014 PLP 1203 (SCMR)
REHMATULLAH KHAN through LRs — Appellant Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1203 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Mushir Alam, JJ |
| Parties | REHMATULLAH KHAN through LRs — Appellant Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1203 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1203 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Mushir Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1203 (SCMR) (REHMATULLAH KHAN through LRs — Appellant Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahnawaz Khan Sikandvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 2014.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 15-2-2007 of Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, passed in R.F.A. No.4 of 2005)
O. XXXVII, R. 2
Purported lease agreement between plaintiffs and customs/revenue authorities
Documents relating to internal correspondence between customs and revenue authorities, reliance on
Scope
Plaintiffs alleged that there was a lease agreement between them and revenue authorities, and that certain construction and modifications were also made to the proposed site on oral direction of customs officials
Plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement between themselves and revenue authorities
Counsel for plaintiffs referred to correspondence between an official of customs and revenue authority, but such correspondence was of no help to the plaintiffs, being internal to the department through which, the customs official solicited advice and approval of higher authorities
Counsel for plaintiffs also referred to a document which had not been signed by any person on behalf of the revenue authority
Plaintiffs conceded that concerned official of revenue authority or other departmental functionaries had not signed the proposed lease agreement
Plaintiffs should have ensured that there was an agreement in place before they made any construction/modifications on the property in question
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This appeal as of right arises out of a suit for recovery of money filed by the present appellants. The suit was decreed in the sum of Rs.20,76,000, by the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 29-1-2005. The respondents filed an appeal (R.F.A. No.4 of 2005), while the appellants-plaintiffs filed cross-objections. The appeal has been allowed and as a consequence, the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and record with the assistance of learned counsel on both sides. The impugned judgment is well reasoned and proceeds on a proper consideration of the law. The appellants alleged an oral agreement between themselves and the FBR. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Exh.P.W.1/1, but this is a document, which has not been signed by any person on behalf of the respondents/FBR. Learned counsel for the appellants then referred to the correspondence Exhs.P.W.11/3 and P.W.12/1, between the Collector of Customs and the then CBR, but this correspondence is also of no help to the appellants, being internal to the department through which, the Collector/Superintendent solicited advice and approval of the higher authorities as to "which of the [sic] party may be contacted for completion of further necessary formalities in order to hire the site". Learned counsel for the appellants conceded that Secretary, FBR or other departmental functionaries have not signed the proposed lease agreement. He, however, submitted that certain construction and modifications were also made on the oral direction of Customs officials. This, however, is irrelevant because it was for the appellants, as rightly held by the High Court, to ensure that there was an agreement in place before they made any construction/modifications on the property in question.
3. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment which as noted above, proceeds on a proper consideration of the law. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. MWA/R-4/SC Appeal dismissed.