2010 PLP 192 (YLR)
Messrs AAQIB BUILDERS through Proprietor — Plaintiff Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Nazim, and 4 others-Defendants
| Citation | 2010 PLP 192 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab, J |
| Parties | Messrs AAQIB BUILDERS through Proprietor — Plaintiff Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Nazim, and 4 others-Defendants |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 192 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 192 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Faisal Arab, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 192 (YLR) (Messrs AAQIB BUILDERS through Proprietor — Plaintiff Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Nazim, and 4 others-Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, R.2
Suit for recovery of amount for works done under contract of works and damages
Counsel for defendants had acknowledged that such work had been satisfactorily carried out and that bills for the work carried out by the plaintiff were not cleared for the only reason that authorities while awarding contract had exceeded its budgetary allocations
In view of the admission made by the counsel for defendants with regard to the work carried out by the plaintiff, no other option was, but to decree the suit with regard to the claim of the plaintiff for damages. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqi for Plaintiff. Tahahwar Ali Khan for Defendants Nos.1, 3 and
4. Muhammad Idrees for Defendant No.2. Qazi Majid, A.A.-G. for other Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
This suit is for recovery of Rs.8,19,992 for the works carried out by the plaintiff in its capacity as a Contractor which works were awarded by Union Council i.e. Defendant No.2. Counsel for Defence No.2 (UC), who is also appearing for defendant No.3, District Officer, acknowledges that such works have been satisfactorily carried out and bill is pending with defendant No.1 for approval. Counsel for defendant No.1 i.e. CDGK states that bills for the works carried by the plaintiff are not being cleared only for the reason that the defendant No.2, while awarding contract, exceed its budgetary allocations and, therefore, the same could not be paid. He, therefore, submitted that the responsibility for making payments, which is beyond budgetary allocation, squarely lies with the defendant No.2 itself. Learned A.A.-G. states that the Province of Sindh has no concern with the non-payment of the plaintiff's outstanding amount. In view of the admission made by the counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the works carried out by the plaintiff on behalf of Union Council, there is no other option but to decree the suit in the sum of Rs.8,90,
992. With regard to the claim for damages learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the Plaintiff does not press for the same. In case of non-payment of the decreetal amount by defendant No.2, the said amount is to be paid by defendant No.1 in 3 instalments from the further budgetary allocations of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is directed to process the bail of the plaintiff within thirty days. However, if defendant No.1 finds that in the award of contract beyond budgetary allocations a particular officer of defendant No.2 could be made personally responsible, then in such eventuality appropriate action may be taken. H.B.T./A-136/K Suit decreed.