2007 PLP 80 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION through District Coordination Officer and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 80 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION through District Coordination Officer and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 80 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 80 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 80 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION through District Coordination Officer and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Chotya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VI, R.2
Trial Court decreed suit which decree was modified by Appellate Court
Appellate Court had given no basis for modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court
Evidence produced by defendants, did not, in any manner, rebut evidence produced by plaintiff
Appellate decree as modified, was set aside and as a consequence, decree passed by the Trial Court stood restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner-plaintiff impugns the appellate judgment and decree, dated 1-3-2006, whereby an appeal filed by the respondents was partially allowed and as a result, the decree, which had been passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the petitioner as prayed for in the plaint, was modified.
2. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff was that he had been purchasing agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fertilizer from respondent No. 1 from time to time. According to the averments in the plaint, the petitioner claimed to have paid the entire amount due to the said respondents and had also become entitled to a refund of Rs.60,000, which had become due to him because of excess payment. In their written statement, the respondents have given figures, which are based on erroneous calculations but, in the main, the contention of the petitioner as to payments made by him, have not been disputed.
3. The respondents, however, have asserted that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo was a debtor of the respondents to the extent of Rs.60,764 and the amount of Rs.60,213, claimed by the petitioner, had been adjusted towards the payment due from his brother with his concurrence.
4. The learned Trial Court framed issues on which the parties led evidence. After considering the same, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioner, which decree has been modified, as noted above. Hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court has disclosed no basis for varying the decree of the learned Trial Court. In particular, it has been pointed out that the evidence produced by the respondents did not, in any manner, rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner.
6. The above submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff remain uncontroverted because of the absence of the respondents despite service. Further, having gone through the appellate judgment, I find no basis, given by the Court, for modifying the decree of the learned Trial Court. In the circumstances, I find the impugned appellate decree to be unexceptionable. The same is set aside. As a consequence, the decree of the learned Trial Court, dated 7-7-2005 in favour of the petitioner stands restored. H.B.T./M-530/L Petition allowed.