Interpretation of document

Reasonable person, considering the context of contract, ought to be able to identify its meaning without any ambiguity and if ambiguity persists, the meaning that accords best with common sense would prevail.

Merely captioning an application or a document is not always material rather it is the instrument, application or document which determines its nature.

Documents or statutes are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full consideration of all provisions of the documents or statute, as the case may be

Every attempt must be made to save the document and for this purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document should be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it

No provision of the document should be read in isolation or in bits or pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties

Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchange between the parties

Court should lean towards an interpretation, which effectuates rather than one which invalidates an instrument.

Documents or statutes are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full consideration of all provisions of the documents or statute, as the case may be

Every attempt must be made to save the document and for this purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document should be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it

No provision of the document should be read in isolation or in bits or pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties

Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchange between the parties

Court should lean towards an interpretation, which effectuates rather than one which invalidates an instrument.

Scope Courts generally do not rewrite agreement by taking over the role of one party but examine whether decision made is reasonable, rationale and proper in the facts and circumstances which are broadly the parameters, in which judicial review is made.

Scope Courts generally do not rewrite agreement by taking over the role of one party but examine whether decision made is reasonable, rationale and proper in the facts and circumstances which are broadly the parameters, in which judicial review is made.

While interpreting a document intention of parties must essentially be gathered from language adopted in document and viewed in law through surrounding circumstances

For proper comprehension and insight into an instrument same has to be read as a whole

Where language of document is simple, clearly understandable, and capable of no ambiguity, then intention of parties to such instrument has to be gathered from its contents alone without adverting to any other extraneous consideration.

Court should lean towards any interpretation which effectuates an instrument rather than one which invalidates an instrument

Deed of contract has to be construed strictly and literally without deviating or anything which was not supported by the intention of parties and language of document

Nothing can be implied in a contract that was inconsistent with it.

When parties sign a document containing terms on which, both the parties agree, the invitation to treat or correspondence led parties to stage at which, they signed the contract, does not have precedent and the signed document is binding on the parties.

When parties sign a document containing terms on which, both the parties agree, the invitation to treat or correspondence led parties to stage at which, they signed the contract, does not have precedent and the signed document is binding on the parties.

Agreement to sell as a whole has to be considered and read.

In construing a document, one has to read the same as a whole and not by picking and choosing a particular paragraph or portion thereof

Deed of contract has to be construed strictly and literally without deviating or implying anything which was not supported by the intention of parties and language of the document

Nothing can be implied in a contract, which was inconsistent with its expressed terms

Intent and purpose of a document should be inferred from the language employed and its ordinary meanings should be adhered to and given preference rather than the far-fetched meanings

Primary object of interpretation of any contract is to find out intention of parties to agreement

By looking to words used one has to construe intention which persuaded the parties to enter into the agreement

Cardinal presumption is that parties have intended what they have in fact said, so that their words must be construed as they stand

Meaning of document or of a particular part of it is to be sought in the document itself

One must consider meaning of words used, not what one may guess to be intention of the parties

No contract is made in a vacuum, in construing the documents, Court may resolve an ambiguity by looking at its commercial/social purpose and factual background against which it was made.

Redundancy cannot be attributed to express words of contract and any other interpretation would lead to absurd result.

In contract between issuer Bank and beneficiary, the bank is obliged to pay the beneficiary if documents are presented for credit drawing, regardless of any dispute between the beneficiary and the applicant.

In contract between issuer Bank and beneficiary, the bank is obliged to pay the beneficiary if documents are presented for credit drawing, regardless of any dispute between the beneficiary and the applicant.

Whether a particular agreement falls within one or the other category depends upon object and intent of parties, as evident by terms of contract, the circumstances in which it was entered into and custom of the trade

Substance of matter and not the form what is of the importance

If contract involves sale of moveable property as moveable property, it constitutes a contract for sale

If contract primarily involves carrying on of work involving labour and service and use of materials is incidental to execution of work, the contract would constitute a contract of work and labour

One of the circumstances which is of relevance is whether the article which has to be delivered has an identifiable existence prior to its delivery to purchaser upon payment of price

If article has an identifiable existence prior to its delivery to purchaser and when title to property vests with purchaser only upon delivery, that is an important indicator to suggest that contract is a contract for sale and not a contract for work.

Document must be read as a whole to ascertain the true intent and purpose of the document.

When the deed or document in question contained ungrammatical language and could not be read literally so as to give a clear meaning without adding or removing some words then the document shall be said to be suffering from a patent ambiguity and oral evidence was not admissible to cure the defect.

Forum selection clauses may fall in different categories, depending on intention of parties, as expressed in language of clause

Broadly, it is of two types, i.e., 'exclusive' or 'non-exclusive'

Former requires that disputes arising under contract, or in connection therewith, may be taken exclusively to court specified in clause, while that is not the case with latter

Clauses drafted in language which clearly and unambiguously shows that parties had intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to a particular court are also termed as mandatory clauses

If language is not clear and it cannot be unambiguously determined that intent was to give exclusivity, then such non-exclusive clause is also termed as 'permissive'.

Attesting witness was the person who happened to see the process of a document being executed and also put his name as well as signature at the end of document.

Any provision of written instrument which is contrary to an enactment is void to that extent.

Document was to be read as a whole, and not in piece, or in conjunction with any other material which was not part of document.

Instrument/document should be given natural meaning and all words in a deed must be taken into consideration and it should be read as a whole and be considered in totality

Document should be read and considered in its plain and simple language without putting on it any premium to achieve the object for which no provision had been laid down.

Document should be read and considered in its plain and simple language without putting on it any premium to achieve the object for which no provision had been laid down.

Bare words could not dislodge the presumption of truth attached to a registered deed.

Facts transpired from the contents of agreements recorded.

Words or phrases employed therein if looked at in isolation or out of context are always capable of being interpreted in a manner which does not convey actual meaning of full text.

Fundamental principle for interpretation of document was to attempt fully to save the document, rather to nullify it.

Plaintiff sought recovery of amount against defendants on the basis of two letters claiming the same' to be promissory note

Validity

Letter in question contained an unconditional undertaking, to pay; a sum of money which was certain; a payment that was to be made to a person; and a signature on behalf of executant, therefore, the letter met all requirements of a promissory note

Failure to stamp promissory note would not exclude it from being enforceable

Letter in question was unclear in its labelling and its effect of passing on liability from one defendant to other defendant was not fully appreciated by plaintiff at the time should not debar plaintiff from seeking to recover money rightfully owed to him

Letter in question was whether called a letter of guarantee, a promissory note, an indemnity or by any other nomenclature its intention, as evidenced by correspondence was to create obligation on a defendant to make payment to plaintiff

High Court in High Court Appeal declined to allow defendant, who executed the letter, to wriggle out of his obligation to pay plaintiff under the letter simply because plaintiff based his bona fide demand on unclearly labelled and worded letter but which intention was clear at the time plaintiff sued the executant as opposed to judgment-debtor

High Court set aside the judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court and declared that letter in question was a promissory note and could be relied upon by plaintiff against defendant who executed the same-Infra-court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Guarantee needed involvement of three parties and letter produced in evidence involved only two parties, therefore, it could not fall within the definition of 'guarantee'

Letter in question was given by first respondent after the contract of sale between the other respondent and appellant had already been breached by the first respondent

Single Judge of High Court rightly found that effect of letter in question was substitution of liability from one respondent to other respondent and not a guarantee.

Principles.

When parties enter into an agreement with certain reservations and restrictions, keeping in view for and against prospects and that is not restricted by law, then policy of law requires that spirit of the intention of parties is to be considered as sacrosanct until there is specific legal restriction

Intention of parties should not be killed through technicalities.

Document would be read as a whole and not piecemeal.

When parties enter into an agreement with certain reservations and restrictions, keeping in view for and against prospects and that is not restricted by law, then policy of law requires that spirit of the intention of parties is to be considered as sacrosanct until there is specific legal restriction

Intention of parties should not be killed through technicalities.

Said nomination papers were transferred to Returning Officer `G' Town, since said Returning Officer was appointed as Returning Officer for relevant Union Council

Requisite fee was also ordered to be deposited with Returning Officer `G'

Said nomination papers, so received on transfer, were accepted by Returning Officer `G'

Respondent/rival candidate filed appeal against said transfer of nomination papers and same was accepted by Returning Officer `G' on ground that no powers were vested in Returning Officer 'L' to transfer nomination papers of petitioner

Validity

Contention of rival candidate that nomination papers could not be transferred by Returning Officer to other constituency as no specific power vested in him in that respect, was not controverted by petitioner, but he placing reliance on Art.9-B of Election Commission Order (CEO's), 2002 had contended that nomination papers could be transferred

Nothing had been brought on record that for the purpose of transfer of nomination papers from one constituency to another constituency any directions had been issued by the Election Commission

Provisions of Art.9-B of Election Commission Order (CEO's) 2002, in circumstances, were of no assistance to petitioner

Nomination papers were to be filed before Returning Officer who had been appointed vide notification, but petitioner did not file nomination papers before Returning Officer who was so appointed for said purpose

Petitioner could have filed other nomination papers before concerned Returning Officer as according to sub rule (6) of R. 12 of Sindh Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 a person could be nominated in the same Union by more than one nomination papers

Impugned order, whereby nomination papers of petitioner, were rejected, did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity in circumstances.