1970 PLP 80 (SCMR)
KALIMULLAH & SONS — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE
| Citation | 1970 PLP 80 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KALIMULLAH & SONS — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
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: 1970 PLP 80 (SCMR) (KALIMULLAH & SONS — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court instruct4d by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 6th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, dated the 7th March 1967, in R. F. A. No. 86 of 1967). Interest-Money due to an individual withheld by Government on a restraint order issued by Custodian of Evacuee Property-On payment subsequently released Government could not he held liable for interest on money which Government was prevented by Custodian's order from paying.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The subject‑matter of this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in an appeal from a money decree is interest on a sum found eventually to be due to the petitioner Kalimullah & Sons, of which the High Court has held that payment was withheld by the respon dent, namely, the Provincial Government, under a restraint order issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Mr: Bashir Zafar, for the petitioner attempted to snow that the Government was informed by the Custodian on dates in 1953, 1954 and 1955 that the money could be paid to Kahmullah & Sons. A copy of the second of these letters is contained in the grounds of this petition. It was written by the Director of Food Purchases to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, and contains a statement that the money due to Kalimullah & Sons was non‑evacuee property, but at the same time, it asks for a release order, which was never issued. The contents of the other two letters were read to us from the paper‑book of the appeal by learned counsel. Neither of them has the effect of a release order from the Custodian to the Provincial Government, to whom the restraint order was addressed. The view taken by the High Court, viz. that the Provincial Government could not be held liable for interest on the money which they were prevented by the Custodian's order from paving to the petitioner, is plainly correct. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.