P L D 1987 Lahore 262 (PLP)
COMMITTEE, MIANWALI‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL
| Citation | P L D 1987 Lahore 262 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | COMMITTEE, MIANWALI‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1987 Lahore 262 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1987 Lahore 262 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1987 Lahore 262 (PLP) (COMMITTEE, MIANWALI‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ .‑‑ Art. 199‑Constitutional jurisdiction can neither be used as a substitute for a suit for recovery of money nor for enforcement of contractual rights and obligations emanating.
Judgment & Decree
The controversy in this case revolves around execution of certain work orders which were placed with the petitioner by respondent No.
3. Sub sequently some complications developed between the parties over payments to be made for the works allegedly carried out by the petitioner ; hence this petition. I asked the learned counsel to point out the impugned order. He frankly conceded that there is no impugned order in the juristic sense of the word. I have perused the entire record ; the documents attached with the petition as well as the report filed by respondent No. 3 alongwith rejoinder subsequently filed by the petitioner. In pith and substance by virtue of this petition, petitioner is seeking enforcement of contractual obligations involving potential factual controversy. The petitioner's stand is that he has completed the work and his payment is being unduly withheld ; whereas respondent's report is that (a) the work has not been completed, and (b) the quality of material used in the partial execution of the works is of spurious and sub‑standard nature. It is settled law that constitutional jurisdiction can neither be used as a/ substitute for a suit for recovery of money nor for enforcement of contractual rights and obligations emanating thereunder. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for enforcement of his rights, if any. M. s. A./M‑121 /L Petition dismissed.