P L D 1979 Karachi 88 (PLP)
ABDUL SATTAR & Co., KARACHI-Appellant Versus MESSERS DADA LTD., KARACHI-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1979 Karachi 88 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | S. 144 read with S. 439 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-District Magistrate erroneously exercising jurisdiction under S. 144, Cr. P. C. over subject-matter-Order of District Magistrate merely an illegal order erroneously passed in exercise of jurisdiction and not an order passed patently without jurisdiction-Such order, being voidable, liable to be set aside at instance of an aggrieved person in appropriate legal proceedings either under S. 144(4), (5) or by revision under S. 439 or through constitutional petition-Validity of such order cannot be challenged in suit collaterally without joining Chief District Magistrate and/.)r Provincial Government.-Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | I. Mahmud and Z. A. Channa, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR & Co., KARACHI-Appellant Versus MESSERS DADA LTD., KARACHI-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Contract, (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Karachi 88 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Contract, (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Karachi 88 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the S. 144 read with S. 439 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-District Magistrate erroneously exercising jurisdiction under S. 144, Cr. P. C. over subject-matter-Order of District Magistrate merely an illegal order erroneously passed in exercise of jurisdiction and not an order passed patently without jurisdiction-Such order, being voidable, liable to be set aside at instance of an aggrieved person in appropriate legal proceedings either under S. 144(4), (5) or by revision under S. 439 or through constitutional petition-Validity of such order cannot be challenged in suit collaterally without joining Chief District Magistrate and/.)r Provincial Government.-Jurisdiction. bench comprising: I. Mahmud and Z. A. Channa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Karachi 88 (PLP) (ABDUL SATTAR & Co., KARACHI-Appellant Versus MESSERS DADA LTD., KARACHI-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Naseem Farooqui for Appellant.
- Jan Muhammad Dawood for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing : 31st January; 5th and 6th February 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 144 read with S. 439 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-District Magistrate erroneously exercising jurisdiction under S. 144, Cr. P. C. over subject-matter-Order of District Magistrate merely an illegal order erroneously passed in exercise of jurisdiction and not an order passed patently without jurisdiction-Such order, being voidable, liable to be set aside at instance of an aggrieved person in appropriate legal proceedings either under S. 144(4), (5) or by revision under S. 439 or through constitutional petition-Validity of such order cannot be challenged in suit collaterally without joining Chief District Magistrate and/.)r Provincial Government.-[Jurisdiction]. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others P L D 1975 S C 331 ref. -- Construction of terms with regard to delivery of goods-Intention of parties at time of entering into bargain-To be gathered not only from words used in contract but also from circumstances, their belief and knowledge as - expressed in correspondence-Power of Court of implying term not expressed by parties-To be exercised very sparingly and only in cases of necessity. Official Assignee of Madras v. Frank Jonson Sons & Co. Ltd. arid another A I R 1931 Mad. 65 ; West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi P L D 1973 S C 222 and Comptoir Commercial Anversonis v. Power Son & Co. (1920) 1 K B 868 ref. Pragdas Mathundas v. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. A I R 1948 P C 217 distin guished. - S. 56-Contract becoming unlawful before due date of performance by reason of some event beyond control of promisor--Default or neglect in such case, irrelevant. Denny Mott & Dickson Ltd.v .James B. Eraser & Co. Ltd. 1944 A C 265 ref.