1989 PLP 2755 (MLD)
Mrs. ALMAS PIRZADA Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNITED INVESTMENT COMPANY and another — Defendants
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2755 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | Mrs. ALMAS PIRZADA Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNITED INVESTMENT COMPANY and another — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2755 (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 1989 PLP 2755 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2755 (MLD) (Mrs. ALMAS PIRZADA Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNITED INVESTMENT COMPANY and another — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, R.2--Suit for recovery of amount--Case of plaintiff was that defendant induced him to invest suit amount in his investment company and promised to give considerable profit on it, but instead defendant misappropriated plaintiff's money--Plaintiff has filed affidavit in evidence and plaint was also verified on oath--Evidence of plaintiff had gone unchallenged and unrebutted as defendant remained absent in spite of service on him--Suit of plaintiff decreed with interest and costs. G.M. Qureshi and Narain Das for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants Nos.l and 2.
Judgment & Decree
G.M. Qureshi and Narain Das for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants Nos.l and
2. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,07,000 and Injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant induced the plaintiff to invest Rs.1,00,000 and they promised to give a profit at the rate of 3.5 per cent per month. It was also agreed that the plaintiff was at liberty to withdraw the amount on 2 months notice whenever she desired. It is contended that the defendant has in fact misappropriated, the plaintiff's money by deception of their company. Hence this suit for recovery of the above amount. The defendant has chosen to remain absent in spite of the service. The suit has therefore proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in evidence. The plaint is also verified on oath. The above evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. I, therefore, decree the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs.1,07,
000. I allow interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the recovery of the decretal amount. The costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendant. H.B.T:/A-570/K. Suit decreed.