1997 PLP 599 (CLC)

Syed Fida Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1994 This petition under section 115 of C.P.C. arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.20,000 filed by the petitioner against the respondents in respect of certain building works carried out by him in the Primary School. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the plea that there was no written contract between the parties. However, the trial Court decreed the suit on 15‑11‑1989.

2. Aggrieved respondents went in appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 31‑3‑1990 who held that in absence of a formal written contract between the parties, the petitioner/plaintiff could not succeed. In this respect, rule 9 of Local Councils (Business) Rules, 1980 and rule 3 of Local Councils (Contract) Rules, 1981 was relied upon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if there be no written contract between the parties yet as it stands proved on the record that the petitioner had executed the work from which respondents had benefited they are liable to compensate the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of Sindh High Court in Ali Muhammad v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another (1985 CLC 1730).

4. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well‑based. Although it cannot be disputed that a contract not formalised or executed in accordance with Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the rules on the subject, is not binding on the local council as these provisions have been held to be mandatory yet if as a consequence of some arrangement between the parties the Local Council has derived some benefit from the other side, it must compensate him on the principle of "quantum meruit" as enshrined in sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act, 1872. This aspect of the matter needs not to be dilated upon any further as it was examined in detail by Saleem Akhtar, J. (as he then was) in Ali Muhammad's case (supra) wherein after thorough review of the law on the subject it was held that notwithstanding that the contract was not in accordance with rules and was not binding upon the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, the Corporation was liable to compensate the other arty for the services rendered by it.

5. In the present case, as has been found by the trial Court and is amply borne out from the evidence produced by the petitioner including the statements of Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Sub‑Engineer, P.W.1, Abdul Hafeez Khan, Headmaster of the School, P.W.2 as also Sabir Hussain, Head Clerk of L.M.C.,. P.W.4 that the petitioner had carried out repairs/renovations of Municipal Boys Primary School, Dharampura, Lahore. No evidence was produced by the respondents in rebuttal. It thus stands proved that the petitioner had executed work for the benefit of the respondents. That being so, the petitioner was clearly entitled to recover his costs.

6. It is unfortunate that even though the learned Additional District Judge relied upon Ali Muhammad's case (supra) for holding that the provisions relating to the execution of contracts were mandatory but he failed to give effect to the law declared in the subsequent part of the same judgment to the effect that the Corporation was bound to reimburse the petitioner for the work carried out by him. As the Additional District Judge has failed to advert to this aspect of the matter, there is no option but to remand the case to him of decision afresh. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed; the judgment and decree dated 31‑3‑1990 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore is set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional District Judge concerned for decision of the appeal filed by the respondents afresh. No order as to costs A.A./F‑206/L Revision accepted.