2008 PLP 562 (CLC)
Messrs RECTO INTERNATIONAL through Partner — Applicant Versus Messrs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. through Director Telegraph and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 562 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs RECTO INTERNATIONAL through Partner — Applicant Versus Messrs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. through Director Telegraph and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 562 (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 2008 PLP 562 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 562 (CLC) (Messrs RECTO INTERNATIONAL through Partner — Applicant Versus Messrs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. through Director Telegraph and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamil Ahmed Virk for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Suit for specific performance of contract
Application for interim order-Applicant had sought interim order for performing services under contract awarded to applicant for a period of one year for transportation of goods of the defendants by restraining the defendants from awarding the contract to any other contractor
Defendants were public functionaries and in the usual course of business they awarded contract along with others to, the applicant for one year, which period had expired
Declaration sought to be obtained, was misconceived being hit by provisions of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877
Even otherwise, after expiry of the period of contract, no restraining order was called for as the contract had expired with afflux of time; and fresh tenders had already been invited for awarding contract wherein all contractors qualified on merit, could participate
Period of execution of contract having already expired, application seeking extension of contract in the suit for declaration and injunction, had been rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA PERWEZ, J.
This revision application is directed against the impugned order of the learned V-Additional District Judge, Karachi south, dated 15-9-2006 in Civil Appeal No.162 of 2006 whereby the application seeking interim orders for performing services under contract awarded to the applicant for a period of one year for transportation of goods of the respondents from Karachi to other destinations by restraining the respondent from awarding the contract to any other contractor. Today the applicant and his counsel are called absent. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Virk, learned counsel for the' respondent, has argued that the respondents are public functionary and in the usual course of business, they award contracts for transporting of goods for' a period of one year as imported consignment are to be moved at various destinations in the country. Present applicant was also awarded one such contract and the duration of the contract was for the year 2006-2007. The time for carrying on the contract has already expired. The declaration sought to be obtained is misconceived being hit by the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Even otherwise, after expiry of the period, no restraining order is called for as the contract stood expired with afflux of time and fresh tenders have already been invited for awarding contract in which all contracts qualified on merit can participate. Under the circumstances, as the period of execution of contract has already expired, the application seeking extension of contract in suit for declaration and injunction was rightly dismissed by the learned trial. Court vide order, dated 7-8-2006 and upheld by the learned Appellate Court by order, dated 15-9-2006. This revision application, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with listed application. H.B.T./R-7/K Petition dismissed.