2007 PLP 385(2) (YLR)
GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Collector D.I. Khan and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 385(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Said Maroof Khan, J |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Collector D.I. Khan and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 385(2) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 385(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Said Maroof Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 385(2) (YLR) (GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Collector D.I. Khan and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary D.A.-G for Petitioners along with Mushtaq, S.D.O.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42 & 54
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Defendants awarded contract for construction of road to plaintiff who was a Government Contractor vide agreement duly executed between the parties
Plaintiff executed contract work and payment was made to him as per contract/agreement
On objection raised by audit party that road roller charges were not recovered from the contractor as per prescribed formula, Executive Engineer directed plaintiff to make payment of road roller charges
Plaintiff, in his suit for declaration and permanent injunction had challenged validity of said recovery
Trial Court decreed the suit and Appellate Court below dismissed appeal filed by petitioner against judgment and decree of the Trial Court
Held, on the basis of audit objection, no recovery could be made from plaintiff because audit objection was a matter to be settled between Audit Officers and the defendant-department and plaintiff had no concern with that
Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly decreed suit in favour of plaintiff and Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal against judgment and decree of the Trial Court
Concurrent findings of the Court below were not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.
The plaintiff-respondent Muhammad Ibrahim Khan is a Government contractor. In the year 1986 the defendants-petitioners had awarded him a contract, for construction of road in the limits of D.I. Khan District and to this effect an agreement was duly executed between the parties. The respondent executed the contract work and the payment was made to him as per contract/agreement. However, during audit of the accounts of the C&W Department/defendants, in the year 1990, the audit party raised an objection that road roller charges were not recovered from the contractor as per prescribed formula and on the basis of that objection defendant No.5 i.e. Executive Engineer C&W D.I. Khan issued Letter No.2235 dated 24-9-1991 to the plaintiff-respondent directing him to make payment of road roller charges according to the new formula of rates pointed out by the audit party.
2. The plaintiff-respondent Muhammad Ibrahim challenged the validity of Letter No.2235 dated 24-9-1991 of Executive Engineer C&W Department D.I. Khan by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was decreed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge-III, D.I. Khan vide judgment dated 28-10-2004. The petitioners; appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-10-2004 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-V D.I. Khan vide judgment dated 3-7-2006 and consequently they have filed the instant revision petition.
3. In the revision petition it is admitted that Letter No.2235 dated 24-9-1991 was issued to the plaintiff-respondent in view of the audit objection based on new rates. However, during the trial the defendants-petitioners had not produced any evidence to the effect that the new rates were in vogue at the time of execution of the contract agreement between the parties or that the new rates were given retrospective effect. Even otherwise on the basis of audit objection no recovery could be made from the plaintiff-respondent because the audit objection is a matter to be settled between the Audit Officers and the C&W Department and the plaintiff-respondent has no concern with it. The learned trial Court had, therefore, rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The concurrent findings of the Court below are not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in revision. The revision petition being without substance is hereby dismissed in limine and consequently C.M. No.198 of 2006, also stands dismissed. H.B.T./196/P Revision petition dismissed.