Section 19 : Voidability of agreements without free consent
2020 CLC 1691 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
HALEEMA BIBI VS AZEEM
S.5 & Sched.—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Marriage—consent of woman—Necessity—Scope—Guardian of woman—Responsibility—Scope—Voidability of agreement without free consent—Scope—Guardians are enjoined by Islam to get their daughters married after getting their consent—Consent of a woman is necessary; she cannot be compelled to enter into a marriage contract without her free will and consent—If a girl is married to a person who is not of her choice and girl signs the nikahnama unwillingly by force or fear of her guardian, the same cannot be termed as valid marriage, because guardian’s consent is no substitute for the girl’s consent.
2020 CLC 1691 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
HALEEMA BIBI VS AZEEM
S.5 & Sched.—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Marriage—Concept—Voidability of agreement without free consent—Scope—Marriage is a civil contract based on mutual consent on the part of a man and woman—Solemnization of marriage requires Ijab-o-kabul, that there should be a proposal made by or on behalf of one of the parties and an acceptance of the proposal by or on behalf of the other, in the presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses, as the case may be, who must be sane adult—Ijab-o-kabul should be without fear or undue influence or fraud—Marriage without a free consent of both the parties would not be legally valid—Consent obtained by coercion or undue influence from any of the parties would make the marriage invalid.
2020 CLC 1691 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
HALEEMA BIBI VS AZEEM
5 & Sched.—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.19 & 19-A—Suit for jactitation of marriage—Voidability of agreement of marriage without free consent—Power to set aside contract induced by undue influence—Scope—Plaintiff assailed order passed by Judge Family Court whereby her suit for jactitation of marriage was dismissed and the marriage was dissolved on the basis of khula—Validity—Plaintiff had, soon after the alleged nikah ceremony, went to the police station and lodged a compliant against her father and her alleged bridegroom, which strengthened the argument that her signature and thumb impression were taken with undue influence—Consent obtained by coercion or undue influence did not validate the marriage—Witnesses of the alleged nikah ceremony were not produced before the court—Appeal was accepted and the nikah was declared to be null and void.
2016 PLD 199 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through AGM(Trafic), Lahore VS FOUR BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2(e) & Chap. II [Ss.10 to 30-C]—Agreement, rescission of—Agreement between the parties had the status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2012 YLR 1797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MUMTAZ BIBI
Art. 30—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.10 & 19—Admission against one’s own interest—Scope—No one could be compelled to make an admission against his interest.
2012 YLR 1797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MUMTAZ BIBI
Arts. 30 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3 & S.89-A—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2, 10 & 19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Joint application by both parties seeking decision of their suit upon statement of a Referee named therein—Appointment of named Referee by Trial Court upon statements of parties and fixed date for recording statement of Referee—Plaintiff’s application for cancelling appointment of Referee for not having personal knowledge of affairs and not trustworthy for being found to be relative of the defendant—Order of Trial Court accepting such application of plaintiff upheld by Revisional Court—Validity—Agreement arrived at between the parties to litigation to refer their, matter to a Referee for getting his statement recorded could not be called an adjustment of suit within meaning of O.XXII, R. 3, C.P.C.—Party to such an agreement could not be debarred from resiling therefrom before recording statement by Referee—Plaintiff had expressed dissatisfaction upon Referee before recording of his statement, thus, Trial Court had not called upon him to make statement—No one could be compelled to make admission against his interest—Plaintiff could not be compelled to agree to recording of statement of Referee on basis of apprehension expressed in such application—Courts below had rightly declined to get recorded statement of Referee—High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
2012 CLD 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
19—Voidability of agreement—Plea of fraud and misrepresentation— Aggrieved party is enabled under S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, to insist that contract be performed and that he be put in the position he would have been in, if the representation had been true—Aggrieved party would be interested in invoking S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, if he stands to gain by it.
2012 CLD 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XXIII, R.3—Recovery of bank loan— Compromise decree, modification of— Illegality and misrepresentation—Voidable agreement— Determination— Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties—Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 CLD 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
Ss. 18 & 19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2), 12(2) & O. XXIII, R. 3— Compromise decree and agreement—Distinguished—Setting aside of compromise decree and agreement— Principles— Compromise agreement is made by parties and compromise decree by Court—If agreement is successfully impugned then decree almost always fails, but it may be possible to attack the decree without impugning the agreement—Challenge to one is, therefore, not necessarily a challenge to the other—Grounds on which the agreement on one hand and the decree on the other can be attacked may overlap but are nonetheless distinct, it may be that as a matter of form, the challenge is directed towards the decree—Substance of challenge has to be carefully ascertained and distinction between decree and agreement must be kept in mind— If a compromised matter is challenged on the ground of misrepresentation, it is important to be clear, whether attack is directed against agreement or decree—Compromise agreement is simply a contract and can be impugned on the ground of misrepresentation, if matter comes within the ambit of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, and compromise decree, on the other hand, can be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C.
2012 CLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
19—Voidabtlity of agreement—Plea of fraud and misrepresentation–Aggrieved party is enabled under S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, to insist that contract be performed and that he be put in the position he would have been in if the representation had been true–Aggrieved party would be interested in invoking S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, if he stands to gain by it.
2012 CLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss..18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.3 & S.152— Recovery of bank loan—Compromise decree, modification of— Illegality and misrepresentation— Voidable agreement—Determination—Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties–Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 CLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
Ss. 18 & 19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.3, Ss.2(2) & 12 (2)— Compromise decree and agreement—Distinguished—Setting aside of compromise decree and agreement—Principles—Compromise agreement is made by parties and compromise decree by court—If agreement is successfully impugned then decree almost always fails, but it may be possible to attack the decree without impugning the agreement—Challenge to one is, therefore, not necessarily a challenge to the other—Grounds on which the agreement on one hand and the decree on the other can be attacked may overlap but are nonetheless distinct; it may be that as a matter of form, the challenge is directed towards the decree—Substance of challenge has to be carefully ascertained and distinction between decree and agreement must be kept in mind—If a compromised matter is challenged on the ground of misrepresentation, it is important to be clear, whether attack is directed against agreement or decree–Compromise agreement is simply a contract and can be impugned on the ground of misrepresentation, if matter comes within the ambit of Ss. 18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, and compromise decree, on the other hand, can be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C.
2012 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XXIII, R.3—Recovery of bank loan—Compromise decree, modification of—Illegality and misrepresentation–Voidable agreement—Determination—Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties—Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
S.19—Voidability of agreement—Plea of fraud and misrepresen-tation— Aggrieved party is enabled under S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, to insist that contract be performed and that he be put in the position he would have been in, if the representation had been true—Aggrieved party would be interested in invoking S.19 of Contract Act, 1872, if he stands to gain by it.
2012 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
Ss. 18 & 19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2), 12(2) & O.XXIII, R.3—Compromise decree and agreement—Distinguished—Setting aside of compromise decree and agreement—Principles—Compromise agreement is made by parties and compromise decree by Court—If agreement is successfully impugned then decree almost always fails, but it may be possible to attack the decree without impugning the agreement—Challenge to one is, therefore, not necessarily a challenge to the other—Grounds on which the agreement on one hand and the decree on the other can be attacked may overlap but are nonetheless distinct, it may be that as a matter of form, the challenge is directed towards the decree—Substance of challenge has to be carefully ascertained and distinction between decree and agreement must be kept in mind—If a compromised matter is challenged on the ground of misrepresentation, it is important to be clear, whether attack is directed against agreement or decree—Compromise agreement is simply a contract and can be impugned on the ground of misrepresentation, if matter comes within the ambit of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, and compromise decree, on the other hand, can be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
19—Provision of S.19, Contract Act, 1872 does not entitle a party to the contract to insist on an entirely different contract being performed—Liabilities under a contract cannot be avoided for the simple reason that contract was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact.
2010 PTD 2081
INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN VS
Ss. 234A, 235, 236, 122(3), 122(5A) & 122(9)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.10, 14 & 19—C.B.R. Circular No.7(5) S.Asstt/2008 dated 16-8-2008-C.N.G. Stations—Tax years, 2004 to 2006—Disallowance of adjustment of tax deducted under Ss. 235 and 236 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on CNG/Petrol filling station against property income of the assessee—First Appellate Authority directed that tax deducted on other income must be adjusted and the remaining amount be refunded–Department contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in directing that the tax deducted on other income to be adjusted and the remaining amount be refunded when the taxpayer was obliged to follow the conditions laid down in agreement executed with the C.N.G. Association and the assessment was amended under S.122(3) of the Income. Tax Ordinance, 2001 in pursuance of the said agreement on agreed basis; and assessment order contained adjustment of credit of tax deducted which was in violation of the agreement made between the department and C.N.G. owners Association—Validity—Section 234-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 to deduct tax at source which was applicable for the tax year 2008 and onward—Taxpayer was entitled to claim the adjustment of all the withholding tax collected or deducted under various heads during the year under appeal—As per original return taxpayer had claimed the other business revenue on account of running of service station, alignment centre and workshop at C.N.G. Station, whereas per revised return the taxpayer had claimed that all three business premises were rented out, which had not only reduced the income but also reduced the tax liability—Taxpayer had also claimed that tax withheld on account of bill for electricity consumed by its tenants and tax deduction thereupon could not be claimed by taxpayer and if it had been depositing on telephone and electricity bills relating to CNG business then again it could be adjusted against any income—If workshop, alignment centre, service station, tyre shop were the rent business then the tax deduction on electricity and telephone bills will be claimed by the tenant while filing their return if due under the law—Owner of CNG Station could claim the tax deduction in the said branches if he declared them his own business and the people working there were claimed to be his employees—Such fact was to be thrashed keeping in view the ground realities and revised return filed by the taxpayer—Case was remanded to recalculate tax liability in the light of observations, while analyzing the ground realities after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.
2010 PTD 2057
INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN VS
Ss.234A, 235, 236, 122(1), 122(3), 122(5A), 122(9) & 122(A)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.10, 14 & 19—C.B.R. Circular No. 7(5) S.Asstt/2008, dated 16-8-2008—CNG Station—Tax years, 2004 to 2006—Adjustment of withholding tax collected or deducted—Section 234A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 to deduct tax at source which was applicable for the tax year, 2008 and onward; and the taxpayer was entitled to claim the adjustment of the withholding tax collected or deducted under various heads during the year under appeal.
2007 PLD 453 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS STATE LIFE INSURACNE CORPORATION through Chairman, Karachi and 2 others
—-O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Suit for recovery on basis of cheque issued by Insurance Company to legal heirs of deceased under his insurance policy—Stoppage of payment of cheque by bank at instruction of company—Plea of
2007 CLD 943 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION through Chairman and 2 others
—O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Suit for recovery on basis of cheque issued by Insurance Company to legal heirs of deceased under his insurance policy—Stoppage of payment of cheque by bank at instruction of company—Plea of
2007 YLR 1382 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BAHADAR KHAN through Legal Heirs VS ABDUL GHANI through Legal Heirs
—S.42—West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Suit for declaration—Mutation of sale sanctioned in year 1948 in favour of defendant’s predecessor by plaintiff’s predecessor was alleged to be fraudulent
2006 PTD 641 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN
I.T.A. No.718/LB of 2004, decided on 14th December, 2005. VS I.T.A. No.718/LB of 2004, decided on 14th December, 2005.
—S.302(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 10, 14 & 19—Filing of questionnaire—Agreement of sales—Voidable contract—Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, provided that only those agreements had binding force which were made by free consent of th
2005 CLD 884 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 19, 23 & 31—Qanun-eÂShahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115—Foreign Private Loans for Financing Foreign Currency Cost of the Project covered by Government of Pakistan Industrial Policy Statement, 1984–ÂAgreements for F
2003 SCMR 1307 SUPREME-COURT
Mst. NAIMAT BI VS Mian MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
—-Ss. 19 & 11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Registered sale-deed, assailing of–ÂConcurrent findings of fact by the Courts below—Plaintiff alleged that the sale-deed was based on fraud witho
2003 YLR 1523 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, QUAID-E-AZAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KARACHI VS AER RAINTA INTERNATIONAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
—-Ss. 18 & 19—Contract procured by any representation, which is not correct, though innocent and unintentional and honestly believed to be correct is said to have been procured by misrepresentation in terms of S.18, Contract Act, 1872—Where one coul
2002 PLD 581 SUPREME-COURT
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD VS LIAQUAT ALI
—-S. 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(2)(d)—Suit for declaration—Plaintiff challenged gift executed by his mother in res
2002 PLD 500 SUPREME-COURT
MESSRS DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—-S. 12(2) read with O.XXIII, R.3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19–Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance (L of 2000), Ss.2(L). 10, 20 & Sched.—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Suits tiled by petitioner for redempti
2002 CLD 856 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI
—-S. 12(2) & O.XXIII, R.3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19–Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance (L of 2000), Ss.2(L),. 10, 20 8a Sched.–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)—Suits filed by petitioner for redemption of
2002 SCMR 1761 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI
—-S. 12(2) & O.XXIII, R.3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19–Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance (L of 2000), Ss.2(L), 10, 20 & Sched.— Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Suits filed by petitioner for redemption of
1999 PLD 328 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ANAYAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Ss. 2(h) & 19-A—Voidable contract—When consent to an agreement was caused by misrepresentation and deceit the contract became voidable at the option of a person Who was misled or deceited—Misrepresentation on a material point induced a party to enter into contract was a good ground for setting aside the contract.
1999 PLD 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB VS M. AFZAL BAIG
Contract Act 1872 S. 19—Application of S.19, Contract Act, 1872—Contract obtained by fraud or misrepresentation—Such contract obtained by one person is not void but is voidable at the option of the other party which can be availed by it by exercising that option—Third party cannot raise any objection in that behalf.
1999 CLC 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUB POWER CO. VS WAPDA
19—Consent to an agreement obtained by coercion or fraud —Effect–When consent to an agreement is obtained by coercion or fraud, the contract is voidable (not void) at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
1998 PLD 132 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKAULLAH KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 15, 16 & 19—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14—Letters Patent Lahore (1911), Cl. 10—Contractor’s claim to enhanced rate than accepted by him at earlier stage—Matter referred to arbitrator—Arbitrator found that acceptance of rates by contractor at relevant time was “under forced circumstances “—Such finding was exclusively relatable to domain of facts—Arbitrator being Judge, of facts and law, High Court would have no jurisdiction to give finding that he misconducted himself—Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the contrary was set aside while that of Trial Court making award rule of Court was restored.
1995 CLC 1906 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INAYAT ALI SHAH VS ANWAR HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 S. 19—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 118—Plea of fraud and misrepresentation—Onus to prove—Where plea of fraud and misrepresentation in execution of document had been pleaded by plaintiff, the moment he had made statement on oath, onus would shift to defendant to prove that document in question was executed voluntarily and of free win.-[Burden of proof].
1994 MLD 1612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR AHMAD VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
—-O.XXIII, R.3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.17, 18(3) & 19—If the agreement on the basis of which the consent order was based, was shown to suffer from misrepresentation, or fraud, the order would also fall to the ground.
1993 MLD 1753 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAIZ VS NIZAMUDDIN
Contract Act 1872 —-S.19—Suit for recovery of amount on basis of agreement—Plaintiff had contended that defendant had failed to pay amount according to terms of agreement arrived at between parties—Defendant alleged that he was made to sign agreement under coercion, but except for bare allegation defendant had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegation of coercion—Had there been any truth in allegation, defendant, in normal course, would have repudiated agreement soon after its execution, hut he had not done so– Witness produced by plaintiff in proof of his claim, not only had affirmed statement made by plaintiff in plaint, but also withstood cross-examination of defendant—Fact that agreement was entered into by parties voluntarily was fully established—Claim of plaintiff had fully been proved on basis of documentary evidence particularly the agreement and on basis of the evidence of plaintiff’s witness
1990 PLD 48 SUPREME-COURT
LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE VS FREDRICK J.W. GROUP
19 — When consent to an agreement is caused b coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused — If the party, in such a case thinks fit, he may insist that the contract shall be performed and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the misrepresentation made had been true.
1990 SCMR 1651 SUPREME-COURT
JAMILA HAMID VS ATTA MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 19 & 19-A—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 95—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185—Suit for possession filed by respondent was decreed against appellant ex parte vide judgment dated 30-4-1974—Date of knowledge of passing of ex parte decree was admittedly 3-6-1974—In proceedings pursuant to application for setting aside said decree, parties compromised on 9-7-1977; application for setting aside ex parte decree was got dismissed as withdrawn–Appellant through compromise was thus a party to ex parte decree dated 30-4-1974 being permitted to remain intact—Appellant was a competent party to consent order of Court whereby her application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed—Appellant filed suit for avoidance of ex parte decree on the basis of fraud—On plaintiffs/appellant’s plea that consent order was obtained by fraud, the impugned order would be a voidable order under Ss. 19 and 19-A Contract Act, 1872 and would remain operative, so long as same was not set aside for fraud etc. by a competent Court, finding of three Courts below that Art. 95—Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable was correct—Appellant was now challenging ex parte decree dated 30-4-1974, which she herself through compromise permitted to remain legally valid and effective by withdrawing her application to have the same set aside, thus blowing hot and cold—Appeal being without merit was dismissed in circumstances.
1989 MLD 4254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. HAJRA BAI VS Mst. AMTUL BATOOL BEGUM
Contract Act 1872 —S. 19–Voidability of contract on misrepresentation–Plea of misrepresentation on the part of defendant not established on record–Admitted facts between parties did not constitute ingredients of misrepresentation–Defendant pleading misrepresentation was not a pardanashin lady as she had been negotiating for the recovery of arrears of rent and possession from tenants of the property, the subject-matter of suit and was thus capable of protecting her interests-Defendant’s plea that the receipt constituting agreement to sell was induced by misrepresentation was thus an after thought.
1987 CLC 2244 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS FATEH MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 16 & 19–Consent of a party to transaction induced by suggestion of a fraudulent fact–Person so deceived having means of discovering truth with ordinary diligence–Effect–Where consent of a party was induced by the suggestion of a fact which was not true, and was fraudulent, exchange deed so effected, held, would nevertheless be not voidable where person deceived had means of discovering truth with ordinary diligence.
1985 PLD 481 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AZIM VS PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LT
19 -Fraud-Agreement entered into by fraud is voidable contract at the option of party whose consent was obtained by fraud Party so defrauded can insist performance of contract-Contract is not void. but voidable Option of avoiding such contract is subject to an exception-Person seeking to avoid contract on basis of fraudulent representation has to be prompt in seeking redress-Such person if allows a long time to elapse, he disentitles himself from obtaining any relief on basis of fraudulent misrepresentation.
1981 PLD 165 SUPREME-COURT
IZZAT VS ALLAH DITTA
19-Agreement-Coercion, fraud, misrepresentation-Defendant making plaintiff believe to have executed a power of attorney but in reality preparing a sale deed by practising fraud upon plaintiff, his own wife-Section 19, Contract Act, 1872, held, not applicable to case and appellant not bound to seek cancellation of alleged sale-deed prior to seeking protection of her possession in form of injunction against defendant-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39 & 54.[Fraud].
1979 CLC 516 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS FEROZE DIN
XXIII, r. 3 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 19–Consent decree-Held, can be questioned by separate suit on any of grounds invalidating an agreement.
1977 PLD 814 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHARIF KHAN VS RAJA ABDUR REHMAN
19–Agreement-Voidability-Agreement allegedly executed under coercion and without free-will of executants-Executants Directors of a business concern, not ignorant or helpless persons–Events described by executants spread over two days and executant free to move about without any restraint on them-Nature of threat given to executants not disclosed-Prima facie nothing on record, except oral allegations of executants, supporting use of threat and coercion-Large number of documents signed by executants during progress of transaction No. F. I. R, lodged with police nor any proceedings taken in Court of law to challenge agreements–Impugned agreement, held, to he not representing true facts.
1968 PLD 812 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD
Contract Act 1872 .S. 19-MisrepresentationPromise, to do an acting future, not coming true-Cannot be said to constitute misrepresentation as to existing facts as contemplated in S. 19.
1967 PLD 275 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SYED GHOUSUDDIN AHMED VS CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST
Contract Act 1872 —-, Ss. 19, 20, 21 & 22′-Karachi Port Trust is statutory body and governed by Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and Bye-laws-Contract of high valuation can be made with consent of Board-Board giving consent upon basis of mistake of question of fact-No valid contract-Application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940), by contractor in such circumstances not maintainable.
1965 PLD 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM QADIR VS GHULAM HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 17 (3) & 19-Gift-Not a contract-Principles of S. 19 may nevertheless be applicable even to gifts-Allegation that promise was made without intention of performing it not established-Mere failure to perform Promise Not fraud.
1963 PLD 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAJ DIN VS ABDUR REHMAN
Ss. 16, 17 & 19-Contract of sale-Party admitting execution of document but denying payment of consideration-Onus lies on him to prove non-payment of Consideration-Party admitting signature on document but contending
that being illiterate he had signed document in ignorance of its contents-Onus to prove valid execution of document lies on person relying on it.
Ss. 16, 17 & 19-Contract of sale-Party admitting execution of document but denying payment of consideration-Onus lies on him to prove non-payment of Consideration-Party admitting signature on document but contending
that being illiterate he had signed document in ignorance of its contents-Onus to prove valid execution of document lies on person relying on it.
1959 PLD 681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE EASTERN AUTOMOBILE LTD. VS TASDIQUE HUSSAIN, I. F. S., CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
Contract Act 1872 S. 19 read with S. 13 (2), Sale of Goods Act (VI of 1930)-Fraud-Contract of Sale of Goods rescindable under S. 19, Contract Act, despite provisions of S 13 (2) Sale of Goods Act-No conflict between two sections: (per Rahman, C. J., on difference of opinion between Kayani, J., and Shabir Ahmad, J.).