P L D 1991 Lahore 174 (PLP)
Lahore and 3 others — Appellants Versus Messrs MASOOD AUTO STORES through Masood Ahmad Malik,
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 174 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Lahore and 3 others — Appellants Versus Messrs MASOOD AUTO STORES through Masood Ahmad Malik, |
| Primary Law | ????????????????, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 174 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ????????????????, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 174 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 174 (PLP) (Lahore and 3 others — Appellants Versus Messrs MASOOD AUTO STORES through Masood Ahmad Malik,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Karamat Nazir Bhindari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
0.11, R.3
Joinder of causes of actin-plaintiff is authorised to combine several causes of actions against the defendants where these causes involve joint interest
Where the plaintiff had several causes of action against the same defendant.jointly; he. was entitled to amalgamate them in one suit. [p. 1.84] A & B
S.17
Provisions of S.17 apply to suits which embrace two or more distinct causes of action
Word "subject" used in S.17
When a suit. is filed combining multifarious causes of actions, then each claim on the basis of causes of action is to be valued separately and requisite court-fee is to be paid on it.--[Words and phrases: [p. 1851 C
S.17 & Sched. I, Art.l
Provisions of S.17 are subject to the proviso at the end of Art.l of Sched. I-to the Court Fees Act, 1870. [p. 1861 D
S.55
Mercantile transactions
Time ordinarily was the essence of the contract
Duty of the Court to further ascertain whether in substance fulfilment of contract depended .on other party's promise being performed by the fixed date or the contract date was merely for the purpose'to secure the, performance within a reasonable time
Intention of the parties had to be gathered from the nature of the contract, surrounding circumstances and from the express stipulations in at
S.39
Performance/fulfilment of a condition or promise in contract may be waived by a party, but waiver must be specific and ,be such. as :to demonstrate a clear intention to affect the legal relations of the parties. [p. 191) F
S.55
Unpaid seller under a contract of sale is entitled t8 sue a buyer for the price of goods. [p. 1921 G
S.73
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34
Interest on a sum adjudged as damages cannot be granted for the period prior to the adjudication of the suit unless it was so contained in the contract or mercantile usages. [p. 19411
O.XLI, Rr.22 & 33
Respondent can support the decree of the Court below on points which have been decided against him but cannot ordinarily attack the decree and ask for variation without filing cross-objection. [p. 196] J
O.XLI, Rr.22 & 33
Appellate Court ordinarily does not vary the decree and judgment of subordinate Court unless and until the aggrieved party prefers appeal or cross-objection under O.XLI, R.22, C.P.C.
Court, however, under O.XLI, R.33, C.P.C. has ample power to do the complete justice between the parties, when it comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the first Court is arbitrary, perverse and has done substantial injustice apparent on the face of record. [p. 196) K .
Judgment & Decree
Charles Rickard's case (1,950) 1 KB 616; Bowes v. Shand (1877) 2 App. C. 455; Muhammad Habibullah v. Bird and Company AIR 1922 PC 179 and Messrs Hafiz Abdul Aziz Yousufani & Co. v. Burma Oil Mills Ltd. PLD 1967 Kar. 318 ref. (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)
S.39
Performance/fulfilment of a condition or promise in contract may be waived by a party, but waiver must be specific and ,be such. as :to demonstrate a clear intention to affect the legal relations of the parties. [p. 191) F Charles Rickards' case (1950) 1 KB 616 ref. (f) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)
S.55
Unpaid seller under a contract of sale is entitled t8 sue a buyer for the price of goods. [p. 1921 G (g) Sale of Goods Act (IV of 1930)
S. 55
When the property in goods has passed to the buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods, accordingly to the terms of the contract, the seller is entitled to institute the suit. [p. 1921 H (h) Contract Act (IX of 1872)
S.73
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34
Interest on a sum adjudged as damages cannot be granted for the period prior to the adjudication of the suit unless it was so contained in the contract or mercantile usages. [p. 19411 Sham Singh v. Nanak 136 I.C. 719; G.I.P. Ry. Co. acrd others v. Jugal Kishore-M'ukat Lai AIR 1930 All. 132; Chet Ram v. Bhut Singh and another AIR 1927 Lah. 99; Kirpal Singh v. Jiwan Mal AIR 1927 Lah. 287; J.H: Pattinson and others v. Bindhya Debi AIR 1933 Pat. 196; Bengal Nagpur Railway Co..Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji and others AIR 1938 PC 67; Abdullah and others v. Allah Diya AIR 1927 Lah. 333; Seth Ajhodhya Prasad and another v. Shivprasad and others AIR 1927 Nag. 18 and Municipal Committee, Gujranwala v. Charanji Lal AIR 1935 Lah. 685 ref. Messrs A.Z.Company v. Messrs S. Maula Bakhsh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1965 SC 505; A. Ismai1jee and sons Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1986 SC 499 and Ghulam Abbas v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi PLD 1987 SC 393 fol. (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O.XLI, Rr.22 & 33
Respondent can support the decree of the Court below on points which have been decided against him but cannot ordinarily attack the decree and ask for variation without filing cross-objection. [p. 196] J Khairati and 4 others v. Alcem-ud-Din and another PLD 1973 SC 295 ref. (j) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O.XLI, Rr.22 & 33
Appellate Court ordinarily does not vary the decree and judgment of subordinate Court unless and until the aggrieved party prefers appeal or cross-objection under O.XLI, R.22, C.P.C.
Court, however, under O.XLI, R.33, C.P.C. has ample power to do the complete justice between the parties, when it comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the first Court is arbitrary, perverse and has done substantial injustice apparent on the face of record. [p. 196) K . Khawaja Muhammad Farooq for Appellants. Sh. Karamat Nazir Bhindari for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 14th, 26th, 27th and 28th November, 1990.