Money suit

No ample opportunity was granted to the defendant to file written statement rather Trial Court pronounced the judgment forthwith when defendant was not in attendance

Trial Court was to summon the defendant and thereafter proceeded with the matter in accordance with law

Matter was to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities

Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside with the directions to provide fair opportunity to the defendant for filing written statement and then decide the suit on merits

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Scribe of agreement had stated that he had reduced the same into writing which had been read over to the parties and thereafter parties as well as witnesses had thumb impressed/signed the document

Requirements under Art. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had been complied with

Scribe had qualified to be an attesting witness of the deed

Guarantee agreement was neither a contract of indemnity nor contract of guarantee in a strict sense

If a person had undertaken to pay liability of another person then it was a valid consideration

Agreement in question was enforceable under the law, in circumstances

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not based on correct appreciation of law and fact which were not sustainable

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Defendant joined proceedings of the case and sought adjournment for filing written statement but thereafter he did not appear and ex parte decree was passed

Petitioner had filed application for setting aside of ex parte decree after lapse of one year and eight months from passing the said decree

Petition for setting aside of ex parte decree could be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of said decree

Petitioner had neither mentioned any sufficient cause or reason for delayed filing of application for setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree nor disclosed the date, time and place of acquiring knowledge of passing of said decree

Petitioner having the knowledge of legal proceedings application was time-barred, in circumstances

Limitation in the present matter would run from the date of decree and not from the date of knowledge

Courts below had rightly dismissed the application for setting aside of ex parte decree, in circumstances

Valuable rights accrued to the other party by running out the period of limitation could not be taken away lightly

Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Plaintiff had to prove and establish his case on the strength of his own evidence and he could not get any benefit from the shortcomings and weakness of the case of the defendant

Plaintiff, in the present suit, had claimed general damages and he was required to establish the same through cogent and reliable evidence

Mere feeling of resentment in one's mind was not sufficient to establish general damages

If a person claimed mental torture/agony then initial burden would lie upon him to lead evidence on such point

General damages were to be assessed following the 'rule of thumb' and said exercise would fall within the discretionary jurisdiction of Court which had to be decided according to facts and circumstances of each case

No illegality, irregularity or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff was bound to satisfy the Court by an affidavit or otherwise that defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree that might be passed against him either was about to dispose of the whole property or any part of the same or was about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court

Scope of O. XXXVIII, R. 5, C.P.C. was limited

Plaintiff in hope that he might get a decree in his favour could not resort to invoke the provisions of O. XXXVIII, R. 5, C.P.C. unless he had placed on record the material for the Court's satisfaction for making such order that defendant was about to dispose of his property with a view to frustrate or delay execution of decree that might be passed against him

No detail of action, in the present case, allegedly taken by the defendant to defeat the decree if any likely to be passed in favour of plaintiff had been given in the supporting affidavit of application for attachment of property of defendant

Mere failure of the defendant to pay the claimed amount of plaintiff could not be a ground for passing an order under O. XXXVIII, R. 5, C.P.C.

Petition for attachment of property before judgment was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Defendant had paid court fee after one year and nine months of filing of present appeal, which was time barred

Defendant was guilty of contumacy and had no respect to the authority of law

Valuable right of limitation having accrued in favour of plaintiff, second appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiff had to establish that defendants had acted in a calculated manner with malice and bad intent to cause him physical and mental injury

Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said burden to justify his claim for damages against the defendants

Bare allegations of malice and prejudice could not be made the yardstick for award of damages

Suit for compensation for illegal, irregular or excessive stress should have been filed within one year from the date of stress

Present suit was time barred, in circumstances

Plaintiff had failed to prove allegations against the defendants and impugned decree was not sustainable

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside and suit was dismissed

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Decree holder approached District Judge who passed direction under S. 115, C.P.C. for expeditious disposal of execution petition

Validity

Jurisdiction to be exercised under S. 115, C.P.C. was of supervisory nature

Jurisdiction of District Court under S. 115, C.P.C. in a matter was to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/

Such jurisdiction could be exercised on an application made by any person or even suo motu, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in a case decidedwhere no appeal was provided

Suo motu revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised where matter was pending before the Court and some illegality or jurisdictional error had come to the notice of the Court

No application in the present matter had been filed nor any illegality or jurisdictional error had been brought before the District Judge

District Court was not competent to pass the impugned order as valuation of suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction

District Court or even High Court had no inherit or suo moto power to issue direction or pass order when no lis was pending before it

District Court had supervisory and administrative control but that was only to the limited extent

Once judgment and decree was passed and execution petition was filed then Executing Court was to proceed in accordance with law and was not to wait for judgment debtor to file an appeal

When execution proceedings were stayed or any other injunctive order was passed by the Appellate Court then Executing Court was to obey the said order

Impugned order passed by the Court below was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff had claimed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant but had failed to prove the same through evidence

Plaintiff against the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- had submitted that he had paid an amount of Rs. 6,17,000/- to the defendant but had failed to prove the same

Defendant had claimed set-off worth Rs. 3,22,000/- as against the plaintiff's claim

Plaintiff had admitted during cross examination that he had sold the house of defendant for an amount of Rs. 47,50,000/- out of which he had paid an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- to the defendant through Bank transaction

Plaintiff with regard to remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- had submitted that he had paid the same to the defendant against outstanding amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- but had failed to prove the same

Defendant had proved that an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was outstanding against the plaintiff and he had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,27,500/- to the plaintiff

Plaintiff was bound to pay an amount of Rs. 3,22,500/- to the defendant in circumstances

Impugned judgment passed by the Court below was set aside and appeal was accepted, in circumstances

High Court observed that present judgment would operate as decree for the defendant accordingly.

Plaintiff in order to prove his case had himself appeared before the Trial Court and had supported the stance taken in the plaint

Plaintiff had also produced Notary Public and marginal witness of agreement who had supported his stance

Defendant had denied the claim of plaintiff in his written statement but he had admitted the claim of plaintiff in his statement recorded before the Trial Court

Plaintiff had proved his claim by adducing reliable and cogent evidence before the Trial Court

Courts below had properly examined the record and had rendered a just and right conclusion

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff partially after proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence of the parties

Defendants had failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellate Court directed the judgment debtor either to deposit decretal amount in the Court or furnish security till next date of hearing

Validity

Judgment debtor in case of a decree for payment of money was bound to deposit the decretal amount in the Court or furnish security for its payment otherwise objection should not be considered

Judgment debtor had failed to deposit decretal amount in the Executing Court

Appellate Court had rightly directed the judgment debtor to deposit decretal amount and no exception could be taken to it

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

No ban had been imposed on behalf of functionaries on construction of hotel nor any notice in that regard was issued to the plaintiff

Plaintiff himself had stopped the construction of his hotel

Impugned judgment passed by the Court below was well reasoned and did not warrant interference

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Executing Court directed to the Manager of a Bank to assess profit at the rate of 22% on decretal amount due against the judgment debtor

Judgment debtor filed objection petition but same was dismissed

Manager of the Bank submitted report with regard to profit on the amount which was due against judgment debtor

Decree holder filed objections on the report of Manager of the Bank but same were declined

Validity

Trial Court had not granted compound interest on the decretal amount rather profit on an amount which was due against judgment debtor from institution of suit till execution of decree

Executing Court passed direction to the Manager of the Bank for calculation of 22% profit on the amount due against judgment debtor in his presence and with consent of decree holder

Decree holder had not challenged the said order of Executing Court before higher forum and same had attained finality

Executing Court could not go beyond the decree

Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the Executing Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the judgment]

Period of thirty days for filing written statement had been provided but Court had discretion to enlarge the time according to circumstances of each case

Provisions of O. VIII, R. 1, C.P.C. were directory in nature and not mandatory

Time provided for filing written statement was not absolute and Court had discretion to grant more time if it was satisfied that the explanation offered by the defendant was reasonable

If Court had directed the defendant to file written statement and same was not filed within the period fixed by the Court then defence could be struck off and judgment could be passed against the defendant

Trial Court, in the present case had exercised its discretion on sufficient cause by giving defendants permission to file the written statement

Penal consequences provided in O. VIII, R. 10, C.P.C. were only available when Court had directed the defendant to file written statement by a speaking order

Simple permission by the Court and adjournment to file written statement would not be a ground to strike off the defence of defendant

Court should pass a speaking order with a direction to the defendant to file written statement and if direction was not complied with then defence should be struck off

Power to announce judgment did not imply decreeing the suit ipse dexit without calling for proof

Said power was discretionary in nature and if suit was suffering from any legal infirmity then same could not be decreed

Court could direct the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his claim though written statement had not been filed

Court in appropriate cases could pronounce judgment at once against the defendant by striking off his defence without recording any evidence in the light of material evidence on file

No more than two adjournments were to be granted for presenting written statement

Defendant had been granted adjournments in routine without realizing the consequences

Court had power to enlarge time to do the complete justice and pass an order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of law

No illegality or perversity had been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Neither appellants supplied deficiency of court-fee within ten days nor moved any application for extension of time within said period

Section 149 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 would apply to a case in which whole of the court-fee was unpaid apart from a case in which only a part of the fee was unpaid

Section 149, C.P.C. conferred discretionary powers which was exercisable at any stage

Plaint was not to be rejected unless at least one opportunity was provided to the defaulting party by fixing a time for compliance of the order

Section 149 & O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C. had to be read together and must be given effect to accordingly

Said two provisions could not be considered mutually destructive

Section 149, C.P.C. was a general provision which would apply to all categories of cases but clauses (b) & (c) of O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C. only dealt with two given situations: If case did not fall in any of the categories i.e. (b) or (c) of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. then power of the Court would be discretionary

Appellants had not complied with the order of the Court in the present case

No plausible reason had been extended in the application for non-supply of deficiency of court-fee

Appellants were guilty of contumacy and mala fide in putting deficient court-fee alongwith memorandum of appeal

Appellants had earlier filed suit of similar nature for the same relief which was withdrawn

Present suit had been filed after twelve years which was barred by limitation

Appellant had no case even on merits

Application for extension of time to supply deficiency of court-fee was rejected

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Government hired services of plaintiff for consultancy and agreement was executed for completion of work within a period of twenty four months on consideration of fix amount

Terms and conditions were settled and agreed between the parties in the said agreement

Said terms and conditions were binding in nature including terms of responsibilities of the parties

Nothing was on record with regard to extension of carrying out of consultancy for such additional period in written form in lieu of agreement signed between the parties

Parties were not competent to extend the contract of consultancy without reducing the same in written form

Plaintiff had failed to prove its case/claim through documentary evidence

Amount agreed between the parties had been paid

Plaintiff could not be allowed to take benefit/advantage of delay caused by the contractor for completion of work

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffered from mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which were set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that same was signed by the special attorney and not by the plaintiff himself

Validity

Plaint could be signed by an agent or representative of the plaintiff

Trial Court had not considered the essential ingredients of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Court in order to apply O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was bound to peruse the plaint in isolation without considering the averments raised in the written statement

Plaint could be rejected if it was hit by O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Question of determination of title of the principal amount (without interest) was required to be adjudicated upon after the parties were allowed to produce evidence and thereafter the question of payment of interest would arise

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same after recording evidence

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Suit for recovery of amount deposited with the State Life Insurance Corporation was filed which was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Defendant-Insurance Corporation admitted that amount deposited by the plaintiff under the policy had arisen to Rs. 90,213

Trial Court erred to deduct an amount of Rs. 90,213 from the amount of Rs. 92,007, worked out by the defendant allegedly outstanding against the plaintiff

Defendant had neither taken the plea of set off in his written statement nor specifically stated that loan outstanding against the plaintiff was to be recovered with interest from the amount deposited by him

Defendant could not be allowed to set up the plea which was not taken in written statement

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence on record

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff and defendant made settlement through compromise that properties mentioned in the compromise deed would be transferred in favour of plaintiff

Plaintiff moved execution petition wherein surety submitted objection petition but same was dismissed

Contention of surety was that decree was passed with regard to the properties which were not subject matter of the suit and he was not bound to satisfy the decree

Validity

Decree was passed on the basis of compromise with regard to properties which were not subject matter of the suit

Said decree could not be executed against the surety

Surety never consented for satisfaction of decree regarding the properties which were not subject matter of the suit

Suit was not decided on merits

Parties had agreed that if properties mentioned in the compromise deed were not transferred in favour of decree-holder then decretal amount would be recovered after auction of the properties

Surety was not bound to satisfy the decree of the Court passed on the basis of compromise deed when he was not privy to the contract of compromise

When terms were settled between the parties to the suit through a compromise then surety would be discharged

Findings recorded by the Courts below were nullity in the eye of law

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Petition for setting aside of ex-parte decree was moved after two years from passing the said decree and four years from ex-parte proceedings

Valuable right had accrued in favour of respondent-plaintiff as role of limitation could not be ignored

Petitioner-defendant should have applied to set aside the ex-parte decree within thirty days from the date of passing of ex-parte order or at the most from ex parte decree

Petitioner-defendant after joining the proceedings absented himself for a long period of more than four years

Petitioner-defendant was bound by the Court proceedings and he should have pursued the lis lodged against him

Applicant-defendant did not contact the counsel so as to know the stage and progress of the case

Petitioner-defendant was required to explain each and every day of his absence beyond thirty days in a justifiable manner

Defendant was not entitled to count limitation from the date "when he acquired knowledge" of ex-parte decree

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Office was directed to prepare a preliminary decree in the counter suit.

High Court observed that written statement so submitted must be examined by the law officer before placing in the Court; that fair and honest contest from the defendant be made and that claim of plaintiff might be true but the it was to be seen that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and defendant

Plaintiff, in the present case had desired to involve the Court before making the payment by the Government

Scope

High Court further observed that Courts were involved in routine financial matters of the departments when they needed to do something out of box

Such conduct of government functionaries could be described as the worst form of abuse/mis-use of process and authority of the Court

Court had to pass an order according to law on the basis of record placed before it

Guidance could be provided by Court to the Auditors that any payment made by any of the government functionaries under a decree or order of Court should not be treated as unquestionable by them

Payment made by government functionaries during course of their routine financial matters was subject to lawful scrutiny by the Auditor though the payments were made under the cover of judgments and decrees or order of the Court

Civil Court on passing a decree on admission whether genuine or not could not conduct audit of accounts to ascertain the correctness of claim and its acceptance by the defendants

High Court further observed that Chief Secretary of the Province and Auditor should see if there was any mischief on the part of official defendants and take care of it accordingly.

Trial Court did not decide the suit after passing order to close right of cross-examination and adjourned the matter for defendants' evidence

Order to close right of cross-examination was not appealable as no decree was passed by the Trial Court after defendants' right to cross-examine was closed

Appeal would lie from every decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeal from the decisions of such a Court

Where Court had disposed of a suit by invoking the provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. then said decision would amount to a decree and same could be assailed through an appeal

Suit having not been disposed of and no decree was passed when right to cross-examine was closed, Trial Court was not correct in holding that order to close right of cross-examination was an appealable order

Mere fact that an appeal was competent against a certain order was no ground for refusing to entertain an application for review of such an order

Had the suit been decided and a decree passed then same would have been appealable under S. 96, C.P.C.

Review petition against order closing right to cross-examine the witness was maintainable

Limitation period for filing review application was ninety days from the said order

Application to review order dated 05-04-2016 was filed on 04-06-2016 which was within limitation period

Law did not obligate a party seeking review of an order to file review petition within the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffered from jurisdictional error which was liable to be set aside

Trial Court should have considered whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of record so as to review the order passed by it

Misconstruction of law, mis-reading of evidence and non-consideration of pleas raised before a Court would amount to an error floating on the surface of record

Present revision petition against the order closing right to cross-examine dated 05-04-2016 was filed on 29-06-2016 which was within limitation period

Mere fact that review petition against the said order was dismissed would not preclude High Court from entertaining revision petition against the said order

Question of merger would not arise where Trial Court had refused to entertain review petition and same was dismissed confirming the main order

Aggrieved person could challenge the main order as on dismissal of review petition principle of merger would not apply

Trial Court did not reverse, alter or modify the main order but confirmed the same by dismissing the review petition

Question of merger would not arise in circumstances and defendants could challenge the original order in revision petition

Provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were penal in nature

Action under said provision was to be taken only if a party despite being given warning to perform an act necessary for the progress of the suit ignored such warning and did not perform such an act

No warning, in the present case, was given to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witness

Adjournment for the date on which provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were invoked was granted due to absence/leave of the Presiding Officer

Provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were not attracted as adjournment should have been sought by the party concerned

Defendants were not given last and final opportunity for cross-examination of plaintiffs' witness

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Defendant instead of submitting written statement moved an application seeking stay of proceedings but same was dismissed

Validity

Plaint was filed by the plaintiffs on 05-06-2015 wherein summons were issued

Defendant appeared on 18-06-2015 and submitted his power of attorney on 25-07-2015 and obtained copy of plaint on the same day

Defendant after obtaining copy of plaint and other documents got knowledge for the first time with regard to cause of action

Defendant moved application for stay of proceedings promptly in circumstances

Court had to be satisfied on the basis of facts and circumstances in each case that conduct of the party seeking stay of proceedings displayed an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and give up the right to have the matter disposed of through arbitrator

Court should examine the facts in each case so as to determine whether conduct of party seeking stay would amount to pursuing the suit

Conduct of party seeking stay of proceedings ought to reflect willingness to participate in the same and factor of acquiescence must not be in doubt

Requesting a single adjournment would not tantamount to stepping in the proceedings by the party seeking stay of the same

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside

Application moved by the defendant should be deemed to be pending

Trial Court was directed to decide the said application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Co-operative Development Corporation was not registered and without any security approval was granted for Banking business

Banking society looted money of the people through illegal and fraudulent Banking business

No legal formalities had been fulfilled before registration of the Banking Society

No property or other assets of the members of the Society were taken into consideration or any charge was created upon any property by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Functionaries of the department had collided with the officers of the Society

No action was taken by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies with regard to illegalities committed by the same

Registrar should have taken steps by entering and searching the premises of the Society, by seizing the books of accounts and other documents

When registration of Society was doubtful, transactions by the officers of said Society were not in accordance with law

Fraud had been committed on the statute in the present case

Formation of Society was not meant to do Banking transactions but to fetch the money of people by playing tactics

Jurisdiction of civil court could not be ousted in circumstances

When there was bar of jurisdiction then barring statute was to be interpreted so as to lean in favour of conferment of jurisdiction on the civil court or special tribunal

Functionaries empowered in the statute must act within the four corners of their jurisdiction

When public functionaries had stepped out of their jurisdiction, civil court would function as court of corrective process to undo the wrong done by such functionaries

On winding up of the Society, Registrar of Cooperative Societies should have appointed liquidator; issuance of award by the Registrar without specifying the dues and liabilities of individuals/members was not sufficient

No action under S.50(A) of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 had been taken by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Nothing was done by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in accordance with law

When neither members/officers of the Society nor officers of the Department had acted with bonafide in accordance with law, jurisdiction of civil court could not be ousted

Chief Executives, Manager Accounts, Secretary of the respective Branches of Banking Society (defendants) could not be exonerated from the laibilites having occurred due to embezzlement and illegalities of officers/members of the society; they were liable for payment of looted money

Trial Court had rightly passed by decree

No illegality or irregularities had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Impugned order was well-reasoned and comprehensive enough

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities moved application for rejection of plaint on the ground that matter fell within the domain of Collector Land Acquisition and civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed

Validity

Claim of interest did not fall within the purview of S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Aggrieved party had independent remedies by way of filing a suit or by invoking writ jurisdiction of Chief Court

Interest was an additional relief which was not included in the compensation

Aggrieved party would be at liberty to seek remedy to file a regular suit in civil court or to invoke jurisdiction of Chief Court if Collector Land Acquisition failed to disburse the amount to the land owners or to deposit same in the Court

Chief Court directed the Chief Secretary to ensure speedy and expeditious disposal of matter with regard to payment of compensation to the land owners

No infirmity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Chief Court framed the issues and remanded the case to the Trial Court with the directions to record its findings afresh after appreciation of evidence of the parties and allowing the parties to adduce further evidence if so desired by them

Order accordingly.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Order accordingly.

Petitioner had no concern with the entire transaction right from the payment of amount uptill establishment of the company

Issue should have been framed with regard to identity of the petitioner as a judgment-debtor

Executing Court without appreciating the material available on record had discarded the request of framing the issue to identify the judgment debtor unjustifiably

Decree could be executed against a person who was not a judgment-debtor provided he was a surety, a purchaser pendente lite, a heir of deceased judgment debtor or in possession of subject property of decree

Sameness of name was not sufficient to bring someone within the clutches of the decree

Besides sameness of name one must have same interest, character or capacity within the meaning of judgment debtor

None of the said requirements had been satisfied in the present case

Petitioner could not be held liable for satisfaction of decree in any capacity

Petitioner was neither party in the suit nor was partner, guarantor or surety

Impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside

Execution proceedings should remain pending and be finalized in accordance with law

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Agreement for sale and purchase was entered at place "A" through letter between the parties whereas suit for recovery of amount was filed at place "B"

Contention of defendant-corporation was that Court at place "A" had jurisdiction to try the present suit

Defendant-corporation filed an application for return of plaint which was dismissed

Validity

Parties had entered into a contract for sale and purchase through correspondence via e-mail and fax

Offer of defendant-corporation was e-mailed to plaintiff at place "B" from place "A"

Said offer was accepted by the plaintiff from place "B" and conveyed to the defendant-corporation at place "A" via e-mail

Purchase order was faxed by the defendant- corporation from place "A" to plaintiff at place "B"

When proposal and acceptance were made by letters then the contract was made at the time when and the place where from the letter of acceptance was posted/mailed

Acceptance of offer by the offering party and intimation with regard to such acceptance would result in contract

Contract would be completed when offer of one party was accepted by the other party

Contract by correspondence would be completed where the acceptance had taken place

Place of delivery of acceptance would be irrelevant and same did not provide any cause of action

Suit could not be filed at the place where letter of acceptance was delivered as delivery of letter of acceptance was not a part of cause of action

Plaintiff in case of breach of contract had option to file suit at the place where it was made

Present suit had rightly been filed at place "B" in view of accrual of cause of action at the said place

Civil Court at place "B" had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit filed by the plaintiff

No illegality had been committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application for return of plaint

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that due to law and order situation in the area, insurgents fired rockets and missiles on the labour and machinery which resulted in stoppage of work and government, in circumstances, was responsible to pay damages

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Plaintiffs could not deviate from the terms and conditions of contract agreed upon between the parties

Law and order situation, if any, could have been handled with the help of local administration

Plaintiffs instead of resorting to legal course, opted an easy and shortcut way to sue the government with another unjustified demand that they be accommodated by awarding another contract

Such demand was not only beyond the scope of contract awarded to the plaintiffs but beyond the premises of law

Plaintiffs had failed to establish their claim through reliable and confidence inspiring evidence and did not approach the Court with clean hands by suppressing material facts with regard to award of actual contract

Plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief claimed for

Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Limitation for performance of contract was three years either from the date fixed for performance or if no such date was fixed, in that case when the plaintiff had notice that performance was refused

Plaintiff served letter on the defendants which was not only acknowledged by the defendants but they also showed inability to pay legal fee in their written statement

Present suit was within time

No illegality or legal infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Provincial Government due to high rise in the prices of building material gave relief package to the contractors but plaintiffs were not given the said relief

Plaintiffs filed suit for payment of "escalation amount" but same was dismissed

Validity

Provincial Government had issued notification for payment of escalation amount to the contractors as per schedule of rates for the year 1999 due to increase in the prices of building materials

Both the courts below had failed to appreciate and interpret the said notification in its true perspective

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Plaintiffs had a cause of action and locus standi who were deprived from the relief in the shape of payment of escalation amount

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was decreed along with profit at the rate of 6% to be calculated by the Trial Court

Plaintiffs were directed to deposit court fee according to decretal amount calculated during final decree

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Contention of applicant was that contract was neither executed at place "A" nor the performance of the same was made within the territorial limits of the Court at that place

Application for return of plaint was dismissed

Validity

Suit could be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction cause of action wholly or in part had arisen

Contract was completed at place "A"

Plaintiff had option to choose his forum for instituting the suit where the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen

Present suit was rightly instituted at place "A", application for return of plaint was not maintainable

No illegality or material irregularity was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in limine.

If there was allegation against the officer appointed by the Court, counsel who was conducting the proceedings was to file his affidavit showing the reasons, grounds and circumstances to establish allegation against such officer

No such affidavit had been filed in the present case

Counsel for the applicants did not file his affidavit-in-rejoinder to rebut or controvert the contents of counter affidavit of respondent

Applicants had filed their rejoinder which had no value as proceedings were conducted by the counsel for the applicants

Even counsel for the applicants had not filed his own counter affidavit to rebut the contents of comments filed by the Commissioner

Commissioner had conducted the proceedings in accordance with law

Court was to presume that judicial and official acts were regularly performed

Applicants were required to give cogent reasons and grounds to rebut such presumption duly supported by affidavit of their counsel who conducted the proceedings

Applicants had failed to bring such reasons and grounds on record duly supported by affidavit of their counsel

Said presumption having not been rebutted, no case for change of Commissioner had been made out

Petition for change of Commissioner was filed with ulterior motive to delay the proceedings

Trial Court had rightly decided the application moved for change of Commissioner

Appeal was dismissed with cost in circumstances

Commissioner was directed to conclude the proceedings within specified period of time.

Contention of plaintiff was that due to inadvertent mistake he and his counsel did not appear in the Court for recording evidence on the specific date of hearing

Validity

Suit was dismissed without dilating upon the merits of the case as averred in the pleadings of the parties

Order XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was not mandatory

Trial Court was supposed to proceed to the suit on merits in the light of entire material on record and after hearing arguments of the parties

Impugned judgment had been passed by the Trial Court hurriedly in a slipshod manner without affording opportunity of hearing or argument to the parties

Provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. were penal in nature and in order to attract the said provisions time must be granted by the Trial Court to a party for doing certain acts

Time must have been granted at the request of defaulting party

If time was not granted at the instance of a party against whom order was required to be made then penal provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C would not apply

Non-appearance of plaintiff before the Trial Court for recording of his evidence on the specific date was not deliberate

Matters should be decided on merits rather than on technical knockouts

Judgment without discussing merits of the case could not be termed a "judgment on the merits'

Court might proceed with the suit notwithstanding either party failed to produce evidence

Where a party to suit failed to do a specific act then next step required to be taken should be initiated

Word "forthwith" was meant without any further adjournment yet it could not be equated with the words "at once pronounce judgment"

Judgment pronounced by the courts below were prima facie `void'

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the sole ground of being time barred without discussing or considering the contents of affidavit along with application under S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908

Appellate Court had exceeded beyond limits prescribed by law and judgment passed by it was coram-non-judice and inoperative

Orders passed by the courts below were not sustainable which were set aside

Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit after providing due opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in accordance with law

Revision was disposed of in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff-employee was that defendant-company had caused financial loss to him by terminating his service contract illegally

Validity

Plaintiff-employee was bound to establish additional assurance or representations made to him by the defendant-company

Nothing was on record apart from the terms and conditions of appointment of plaintiff-employee

Nothing was on record that termination from service had resulted into breach of any assurance or promise

Principle of master and servant was involved in the present case

Only remedy for the plaintiff-employee was to file suit for damages in circumstances

Plaintiff-employee could not ask for restitution of his service in circumstances

Burden to prove his entitlement to the reliefs on the grounds as stated in the plaint was on the plaintiff-employee

Any compensation or damages could not be awarded to the plaintiff-employee for a loss or damage which had been sustained by him indirectly by reason of breach of contract

Plaintiff-employee was bound to show that defendant's action of terminating his service was against the terms and conditions of contract

Plaintiff and defendant were in equal position to choose to terminate service by giving a 30 days written notice in advance or making the payment in lieu thereof

Defendant-company was within the domain to terminate service of plaintiff-employee by resorting to scheme of appointment letter

Defendant-company had not committed any breach of contract in circumstances

Thirty days period contained in the appointment letter was too short for a person to find out a new job in the private sector

Period of 120 days was reasonable within which a person could secure a new job of the same stature in the private sector

Plaintiff-employee was entitled to either 120 days written notice in advance or payment in lieu thereof

Plaintiff-employee had received 30 days salary in lieu of the stipulated notice and other emoluments and deductions

Plaintiff-employee was directed to be paid the salary of remaining 90 days and other emoluments as per his entitlement

Suit was partly decreed accordingly.

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.11,82,636 with interest of 20% till execution of decree, but Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.59,898

Validity

Genuine agreement existed between the parties for doing common business in implementing the suit project

Plaintiff had proved the case

Trial Court had passed impugned decree without any elaboration to the effect that as to why the suit was not decreed throughout and was decreed partly

No plausible reasoning was given in the impugned judgment, showing that the attending circumstances, and evidence available on record forced the Trial Court for decreeing the suit partly

Chief Court allowing appeal, decreed the suit throughout, with profit at the rate of 20% on the suit amount from July 1997 till execution of decree.

Such correspondence and asking for arrangement of the funds would amount to acknowledgement which would give rise to the fresh starting point to the plaintiff

Claim of plaintiff could not be refused on the ground of limitation

Plaintiff had to be awarded the amount with regard to the work done for construction which had not been denied by the defendants

Impugned judgment was set aside and decree was passed to the tune of Rs.16,91,025.22 along with interest/profit at the prevailing market rate which should be recovered from the delinquent officers who were responsible for the unnecessary delay in payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Defendants had agreed to clear bills of contractor-plaintiff with regard to items used by him but they had refused to honour their commitment and make payment

Trial Court, held, had rightly passed decree and partially allowed the claim of plaintiff-contractor in terms of negotiation-settlement between the parties

Impugned order was based on sound footings

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court did not allow the defendants to get recorded statement of witness whose name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses

Validity

Witness produced by the parties in the court had to be examined by the court

Order XVI, R.1, C.P.C. was a technical one and court could not refuse to examine the witnesses on the ground that they were not mentioned in the list of witnesses

Court had discretion to allow the witnesses to be examined even if they were not mentioned in the list of witnesses

Party who wanted to produce such witness had to show good cause and court had to record reason if it allowed such witness to be examined

Present suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside

Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to allow the defendants to implead necessary party in the suit and give an opportunity to the defendants to record evidence of witness whose testimony was refused to be recorded

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money claiming that he was owner of vehicle which he had rented out to defendant company, who later informed him that said vehicle had been snatched from defendant-driver of company, but it was later turned out that driver himself was involved in theft of vehicle

Defendant, after amicable settlement through arbitration, paid part of total value of said vehicle but failed to pay the remaining amount

Trial Court dismissed the suit

Plaintiff filed appeal before Additional District Judge, which was returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction; whereafter present appeal was filed before High Court

Defendant took plea that appeal was filed with lapse of thirteen days after return thereof, and no sufficient cause was given for said delay

Contention raised by plaintiff was that he had filed present appeal before court below well before expiry of limitation period, but same was returned after expiry of limitation, so he should not have suffered for act of court

Validity

Appellate court, in oblivion to High Court Rules and Orders, not returning appeal on very first day when it was filed, had committed irregularity and illegality

If first appeal was properly checked in light of High Court Rules and Orders, it would have been returned forthwith, so that it could be re-filed within prescribed period of limitation before competent court

First appeal, having been filed well within time, remained pending before court for nine months before the same was returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction

Plaintiff had performed his obligation by applying for certified copies on next day of pronouncement of order of return

Plaintiff, who remained vigilant and showed no negligence, should not have suffered by act of court

Omission on part of court in not returning appeal in time, which was reason for re-filing present appeal beyond limitation, was sufficient cause under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay

Objection that plaintiff had re-filed present appeal after return with delay of twelve days was not sustainable as said delay had no adverse effect

Delay in re-filing present appeal was condoned

Plaintiff had not produced any document regarding registration of vehicle to prove that he was owner thereof

Plaintiff, in his pleadings, had mentioned himself as owner of vehicle but during cross-examination he stated his son to be owner of the same

Plaintiff's son had not asserted right to vehicle before any court

Plaintiff failed to prove purchase of said vehicle

Plaintiff had not produced any document regarding renting out of vehicle to defendant

Documents produced by plaintiff were not properly executed

Award of arbitration was not admissible in court as same had not been signed by defendant

Plaintiff had not lodged FIR for alleged theft of vehicle

Findings of court below were based on correct appreciation of evidence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstance.

Behavior and conduct of the parties would matter in absence of a writing to conclude whether there existed any "agreement" or otherwise

Plaintiff had supplied goods under some understanding and for consideration

No written agreement was on record between the parties but plaintiff and defendant had proved whole transaction from their conduct and attitude

No specific and clear denial was available to the claim of plaintiff

Defendant had paid sales tax on the goods received directly from the plaintiff

Binding contract between the parties could be concluded from their conduct in circumstances

Both the parties had come face to face and transaction was confirmed

Action of agent was binding upon the principal when the principal had confirmed the acts of the agent

No illegality had been committed by the courts below with regard to appreciating the factual controversies

Transaction took place at place "K" where defendant had ordered the goods and goods were sent and sales tax amount was enchashed

Most of the part(s) of transaction were completed from place "K"

Courts below had not erred while holding that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff at place "K"

Defendant could not deny the legal obligation by taking the cover of jurisdictional defect

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.