2012 PLP 1659 (CLD)

GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.

This Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed by Majlis-e-Shoora, Mekran at Turbat whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-7-2009 passed by Qazi, Turbat was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for declaration, injunction and enforcement of letter No.754-56/relief (R.B) dated 23rd July, 2007 in the Court of Qazi, Turbat on 24-8-2009 with the averments that they are owners of the property situated at Koh-e-Murad and the same was decreed in their favour upto High Court. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant/petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 executed an agreement on 23-7-2007 for installation of temporary Khaima Basti over the land decreed in favour of plaintiffs/respondents for ten months and it was agreed between the parties that the facilities of water and electricity available on the property in question would be handed over to the respondents after completion of said period. It was also averred in the plaint that after laps of 24 months they contacted the petitioners for performance of agreement, whereupon they refused to abide by the terms of the agreement. The suit was contested by the petitioners, who through their joint written statement denied the execution of agreement and also raised certain preliminary objections. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issue:-- After framing of above said issue, arguments were heard by the learned Qazi, Turbat, who decreed the suit on 16-10-2009. The petitioners being dissatisfied preferred an appeal before the Majlis-e-Shoora, Makran at Turbat, which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010, hence this petition. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General representing the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate-General vehemently contended that the petitioners raised specific legal objection with regard to maintainability of the suit and in fact no agreement was executed between the parties and that letter dated 23-7-2007 under no provision of law can be considered as an agreement within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, the Court below acted illegality and with material irregularity decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. He further argued that on the basis of mere letter the respondents have not been able to establish the existence of a valid agreement between the parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Courts below after proper appreciation of facts have decided the issue legally, without committing any illegality and irregularity. The learned counsel further pointed out that there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at after proper appreciation of facts on record, which do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He in support of his contentions referred to cases of Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Hakimsons (Impex) Ltd. (1983 CLC 1251), Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Bahadur Khan (1985 CLC 1457) and Michal Assely and others v. Messrs Abdul Sattar and Brothers (PLD 1960 (W.P) Karachi 346). I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record. Admittedly, there is nothing on record in the form of an agreement executed between the parties. In fact it is the case of respondents that there is a letter addressed to the respondents by the petitioner No.2 in shape of agreement, which neither bears the signature of petitioner No.1 nor the petitioner No.2 had any authority to issue such like letter. It is an established principle of law that for the constitution of a valid agreement there must be at least two persons i.e. promisee and promisor, who agree with their free, consent a lawful object and legal consideration, as required by section 2 of the Contract Act. In the instant case letter dated 23-7-2007 only contains the signature of respondent No.2, whereas section 2(b) of the Contract Act defines Contract as an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement or a contract made between the competent parties with their consent for lawful consideration and lawful obligation is binding on the parties but there should be a valid contract. In the instant case the letter dated 23-7-2007 does not fall within the definition prescribed in section 2(b) of the Contract Act. Moreover, in the instant case written letter by E.D.O was not executed by the competent persons and the respondents also failed to prove the same. I am of the considered view that letter dated 23-7-2007 neither fulfils the requirement of agreement as defined in section 2(a)(b) and (c) of the Contract Act; whereas, mere signing of letter could not be termed as a valid agreement within the meaning of section 2 of the Contract Act, thus the respondents are not entitled to any decree for enforcement of letter dated 23-7-2007. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in view of the above discussion are distinguishable and are not applicable to the peculiar facts of this case. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to accept this petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23-7-2009 passed by Qazi, Turbat and judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed by Majlis-e-Shoora, Makran at Turbat, resultantly the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. MWA/38/Q Petition accepted.