Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C.S. No 01-1992 PDF
C.S. No 01-1992 PDF
DATE OF HEARING:
PLAINTIFF BY:
DEFENDANTS BY:
09.05.2011
Mr. Tariq Aziz, Advocate
Ch. Abdur Rehman Nasir, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
Telecommunication
Corporation
will
be
written
as
Department/Defendants
for
installation
of
new
transpired that the same was only a standard version and was not in
accord with the required standard of plaintiff who then immediately
picked up this issue with the defendant but the latter refused to
acknowledge his liability as per contract by stating that standard
model does not contain the required features and the plaintiff will
have to procure additional accessories at extra costs. After some
discussions, the plaintiff opted not to enter into any controversy with
the defendant and paid full price of the additional accessories
including airlifting charges amounting to Rs. 24,25,300/- vide cheque
dated 04.4.1988. It was agreed between the parties that additional
accessories were to be installed within six months, but the defendant
again defaulted and failed to perform his part of contract despite
repeated demands, therefore, the plaintiff left with no option but to
cancel the purchase order dated 28.5.1990. The plaintiff asked the
defendants to rerun the sum of Rs. 24, 25,300/- together with
interest/markup and further sum of Rs. 23, 23,400/- as bank charges
alongwith markup, but he refused, which necessitated this suit.
3.
4.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
6.
contentions.
7.
9.
After hearing both the sides, the then learned Civil Judge Ist
before Rawalpindi Bench of the Honble Lahore High Court, which was
accepted vide Judgment dated 30-9-2010 by a Learned Division
Bench and the case was remanded to the learned Trial Court with
direction to decide the same afresh after giving its findings on each
& every issue separately.
11.
back to the Civil Court Islamabad where it remained pending and then
stood transferred to this Court after its establishment due to having
pecuniary jurisdiction.
12.
13.
relied upon case laws reported as PLD 1965 (W.P) Lahore 513 and AIR
1959 Madhya Pradesh 30 (V 46 C 14) Indore Bench.
14.
ISSUE NO. 01
16.
17.
barred. For deciding this issue, I take guidance from the Judgment in
Appeal dated 30-9-2010 wherein regarding this issue, following
observations were made:The findings on issue No. 2 are also not sustainable
as the reading of Para 13 of the plaint reveals that
the cause of action arose on 13-2-1991 when on
account of breach of the terms of the contract, the
plaintiff was constrained to cancel the agreement
and he after sending notice, cancelled the contract
and called upon the defendants to refund the
payment made in advance and lastly in the year
1991 when the meeting took place between the
parties. The cause of action although having started
on 28-5-1990, accrued continually. Thus in our
view, the suit instituted by the appellant on 29-111992 is within time from 21-3-1993 when the last
meeting took place between the parties, as is
provided under Chapter VI of the I Schedule of the
Limitation Act, 1908.
19.
Although it was objected that the suit had not properly been
ISSUE NO. 06
23.
stress
Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. Much
was
made
from
plaintiffs
side
that
it
was
25.
Type
Exchange.
It
means
that
there
was
no
specific
26.
27.
are still available with the defendants and they are ready to provide
the same to the plaintiff.
29.
agreement inter-se the parties and the same were orders, with no
stipulations having binding force, for provision of Exchange &
accessories, therefore, there arises no question of its breach by the
defendants. The issue is answered in negative.
ISSUE NO. 09
31.
Since it has been held that the defendants were not at fault
ISSUE NO. 11
33.
For the foregoing findings, the suit of the plaintiff for the
M. Suhail
JUDGE
13 .06.2011.