1988 PLP 1811 (SCMR)
PAK FEEDERS and others — Petitioners Versus M/s.SULTAN POULTRY FARM — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1811 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | PAK FEEDERS and others — Petitioners Versus M/s.SULTAN POULTRY FARM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1811 (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 1988 PLP 1811 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1811 (SCMR) (PAK FEEDERS and others — Petitioners Versus M/s.SULTAN POULTRY FARM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 5 July, 1981 in R.S.A. No.148 of 1981). --S.100--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Grant of--Concurrent finding of fact, interference with- Respondent's suit for damages, decreed against petitioners and decision affirmed in Regular Second Appeal--Findings of fact being upheld throughout against petitioners, judgments of Courts below as well as that of High Court called for no interference--ii eave to appeal refused. Date of nearing: 18th July, 1988.
Judgment & Decree
Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of nearing: 18th July, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioners have assailed the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 5th July, 1981. The petitioners manufacture feed for chickens and sell it on payment. The respondent purchased chicken feed manufactured by the petitioners and gave it to their poultry as a result according to the respondent 1,057 birds died due to food poisoning and the growth of others was adversely affected. Consequently they brought a suit against the petitioners for damages to the tune of Rs.24,
500. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge in favour of respondent for the amount of Rs.23,
280. The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed B.S.A. in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present petition. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case post‑mortem examination was conducted only of seven birds and the opinion was expressed to the effect that all the birds had been killed by food poisoning. It was, therefore, urged that this was not proper mode for arriving at the conclusion that the poultry had died because of food poisoning. It was then submitted that the feed manufactured by the petitioners was never chemically got examined in order to determine whether it contained any poisonous element or not. It was finally submitted that there was misreading of evidence in this case and that, therefore, the suit should have not been decreed in favour of the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we note that the finding of fact that the poultry of the respondent had been killed by the feed which had been manufactured by the petitioners and supplied to the respondent for feeding the birds, had been upheld throughout as against the petitioners. In that view of the matter the impugned judgments of the Courts below as well as that of the high Court call for no interference. This petition has no merit and is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. M.I./P‑53/S Petition dismissed.