Plea not raised

2025 PLD 36 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 273Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 70Recovery of moneyStatutory notice, non-issuance ofPlea not raisedObligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous actScope

Appellant/ Cantonment Board assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs to pay money for the services rendered

Plea raised by appellant/Board was that no notice under S.273 of Cantonments Act, 1924, was issued by respondents/plaintiffs prior to filing of suit

Validity

When appellant/Cantonment Board remained silent in its written statement about S. 273 of Cantonments Act, 1924, it had implicitly waived the protection under S. 273 of Cantonments Act, 1924

Appellant/Board was estopped from raising such plea subsequently which was a curable defect

Provision of S. 70 Contract Act, 1872, provides three requirements: (i) party claiming compensation must do something for another or deliver something to the party from whom he is claiming compensation; (ii) claimant must not intend to do the act or deliver goods gratuitously; and (iii) party from whom he is claiming must enjoy benefit of the act or goods

Respondents/plaintiffs satisfied all three ingredients of S. 70 of Contract Act, 1872

Even if there was neither any contract nor contractual term fixing compensation of service rendered, respondents/plaintiffs were even then entitled to compensation "quantum meruit" from appellant/Board

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as the same had been passed on proper appreciation of facts and law and did not suffer from any illegality

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 CLC 1138 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O.VI, R.7PleadingsPlea not raisedEvidence, leading ofPrincipleParty cannot be allowed to lead evidence on plea not raised in pleadingsEvidence produced by parties contrary to pleadings cannot be consideredCivil cases depend upon pleading of parties and they have to be confined within four corners of pleadings

Where no specific plea is taken by either party, evidence with regard to such plea even brought on record cannot be considered.

2014 CLC 1470 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(d) & 13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRight of pre-emptionMutation based on decreeScopePlea not raisedRevisional Court, jurisdiction ofVendees sought rejection of plaint on the plea of limitation but their application was dismissed by Trial Court

Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction rejected plaint on the ground that mutation in question was based on decree hence suit was barred under S.2(d) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987

Validity

Application of vendees was specifically on the point of limitation and there was no question of maintainability, regarding sale

Applicability of excluding clause was neither agitated in application nor even in written statement, thus revisional Court had no jurisdiction to go to such extent for rejecting of plaint filed by pre-emptor

Mutation in question was attested on the basis of decree in a suit which was not a money decree, hence it did not come within the excluding clause of S.2(d)(ii) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987, nor the same came within the purview of order as mentioned in it

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored the suit

Petition was allowed in circumstances.