1991 PLP 1632 (CLC)
Ch. NIAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1632 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Nazir Akhtar, J |
| Parties | Ch. NIAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1632 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1632 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Nazir Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1632 (CLC) (Ch. NIAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ismail for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Second appeal‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below, not suffering from any misreading or non‑reading of evidence or from any other legal infirmity, could not be interfered with in second appeal‑‑‑Miscalculation of price of material in dispute on part of Courts below however, was ordered to be corrected.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha for Appellant. Muhammad Ismail for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1991. This R.S.A. arises out of a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,457.01 filed by the respondent on 30‑7‑1962. The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22‑4‑1967. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide his judgment and decree dated 26‑5‑1969.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
3. The two Courts below had perused the relevant record and recorded a finding of fact on issue No.l to the effect that 3,49,425 bricks were supplied by the respondents to the appellant. This fact was proved by documents EX.Pl to Ex.P.128 and the oral evidence of 44 witnesses. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on issue No.l do not suffer from any misreading or non‑reading of the evidence or any other legal infirmity so as to justify interference under section 100 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant has however, rightly pointed out that the Courts below have miscalculated the price of the bricks. Calculating at the rate of Rs.44.50 per thousand the total price of bricks comes to Rs.15,549.41. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs.7,767 through cheques. Another sum of Rs.200 was received in cash by Muhammad Shafi, one of the plaintiffs. Muhammad Shafi appeared as P.W.44 and admitted receipt of Rs.200 in cash. Thus the appellant was able to prove payment of Rs.7,967 and a sum of Rs.7,582.41 remained outstanding against them.
4. I, therefore, partly allow the appeal and reduce the decretal amount to Rs.7,582.41 leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./N‑430/L Order accordingly.