1981 CL C 1 433 (PLP)
PATRACO LTD.‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF
| Citation | 1981 CL C 1 433 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hayee Kureshi and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | PATRACO LTD.‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 CL C 1 433 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 CL C 1 433 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 CL C 1 433 (PLP) (PATRACO LTD.‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohsln Tayabally, Naisuddin and Iqbal Siddiqui for Appellants.
- Usman Ghani Rashid, A.‑G. (Sind) with Syed Sarfraz Ahmad Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- M. Zaheeruddin Khan for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Dates of hearing : 9th, 21st, 24th October ; 12th and 14th Novem ber, 1979,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 115‑Estoppel‑Appellants/plaintiffs having protested against subsequent auction and setting up case of having taken part in subse quent auction only to protest their interest and to avoid complications, contention that plaintiff having taken part in auction for following year estopped from raising plea of being auction purchasers in respect of property in question, held, not tenable and plaintiff not estopped from raising such plea. ‑[Estoppel].
Judgment & Decree
ENEMY PROPERTY AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 186 to 189 and 201 of 1970, decided on 27th November, 1979. ‑‑‑ S. 115‑Estoppel‑Appellants/plaintiffs having protested against subsequent auction and setting up case of having taken part in subse quent auction only to protest their interest and to avoid complications, contention that plaintiff having taken part in auction for following year estopped from raising plea of being auction purchasers in respect of property in question, held, not tenable and plaintiff not estopped from raising such plea. ‑[Estoppel]. Mohsln Tayabally, Naisuddin and Iqbal Siddiqui for Appellants. Usman Ghani Rashid, A.‑G. (Sind) with Syed Sarfraz Ahmad Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. M. Zaheeruddin Khan for Respondents Nos. 3 and
4. Dates of hearing : 9th, 21st, 24th October ; 12th and 14th Novem ber, 1979,