Section 13 : “consent” defined
2017 CLC 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
13—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Specific performance of agreement—Party to agreement was required to bring on record evidence to connect two pages of document exhibited with each other—Failure of party to connect the pages—Effect—Such deficiency did not establish “consensus ad idem” and on basis of such type of document which was non-compliant of said principle of law, a decree for specific performance could not be issued.
2017 CLC 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
13—Agreement—Execution of—Requirements—Parties and witnesses though should execute document at the end, but parties must also sign each page if document was written out on more than one page.
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status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2016 CLD 1938 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS RAJA TRADERS
Ss. 9 & 10— Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 33-B—State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular 29, dated 15.10.2002—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 13, 14 & 16—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Orders XIV & XV—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 25—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend, refusal of—Concessions claimed under State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29, dated 15-10-2002—Permissibility—Right to fair trial and equality of citizens—Scope—Settlement of issues or determination of suit on issues of law or issues agreed upon—Disposal of suit at first hearing—Plaintiff-Bank filed present suit for recovery of loan amount; whereas, defendant filed connected suit seeking concessions regarding their outstanding liabilities requiring plaintiff-Bank to sign agreement in terms of decision made by Committee of State Bank of Pakistan under BPD Circular No. 29—Validity—Plaintiff-Bank could be coerced to sign any unilateral agreement, terms of which had never been agreed by Bank, as hit by provisions of Ss. 13, 14 & 16 of Contract Act, 1872—No cause of action against law—Plaintiff in connected suit was not only required to show that not only his rights had been infringed but also that right to seek a relief was in existence—BPD Circular No.29 did not provide right to defendants, unless they met precondition as set out in the said Circular, such as where chances of recovery of loan were ‘negligible’ or unit was considered as sick—Enforcement of BPD Circular No.29 by individual Banks to their respective customers was prerogative of the Banks—Banks were to decide whether debt outstanding against customer was lost debt or recoverable in terms of assets mortgaged with them—Plaintiff-Bank, who was sole decision maker as to recovery of outstanding liability, had never undertook to resolve dispute according to terms of alleged settlement of liabilities under BPD Circular No.29—In the present case, probability of recovery was not negligible, as properties were mortgaged and guarantees were enforceable—Banking Court was required to find out as to whether any question of law and fact was raised which was to be determined and whether allegations made in the plaint would give rise to cause of action or not—Filing of suit by defendant, who otherwise had no cause of action against financial institution, could not be considered to be a guarantee for grant of leave to defend the suit filed by financial institution—Orders XIV & XV, C.P.C., which dealt with issues, also supported that if parties were not at issue, judgment was to be passed straightaway without recording evidence—If no cause of action was made out, plaint was liable to be rejected—No ground, therefore, existed to consider the leave applications which were dismissed and plaint of suit filed by them was rejected—Suit for recovery of loan amount was decreed in circumstances.
2014 MLD 1380 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL MANNAN MUTTAQI VS DEFENSE HOUSE AUTHORITY
VII, R.11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.21, 42 & 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.13, 25 & 29—Suit for specific performance—Rejection of plaint—Object and scope—Plaintiff sought specific performance of contract on the basis of ‘token receipt’—Validity—Said token receipt was undated—Name of witness was mentioned but his signatures were missing—Cheque towards token amount was issued conditionally and amount mentioned therein was not received by defendant—Consent decree and token receipts were admitted documents, same could be taken into consideration for purpose of rejecting plaint—No amount whatsoever had passed from plaintiff to any of the co-owners/defendants—Under S.25 of the Contract Act, 1872 an agreement made without consideration was void unless the same was in writing and registered—Under S.29 of the Contract Act, 1872 agreements, the meaning whereof was not certain or capable of being made certain, were void—Suit, therefore, was barred under Ss.25 and 29 of the Contract Act, 1872—One of the defendants who alone had authority to sell the suit property had not given consent to alleged sale—Under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872 two or more persons were said to have consented when they agreed upon the same thing in the same sense—Suit was also barred under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872—Plaintiff never acquired any right title or interest in the suit property in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877—In case of any of the eventualities provided in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. court was not only empowered to reject the plaint but was under obligation to reject even without application from a party—Object of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was to save parties from rigors of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings—Plaint was rejected by High Court.
2012 PLD 386 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR IQBAL VS Mst. NASIM AKHTAR
13—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54—Agreement for sale of immovable property—First page of such agreement not containing signature of vendor, vendee or any witness or identifier, whereas second page thereof not containing signature of vendee—Validity—Such agreement would not constitute a contract—Alleged vendee would not be bound by such agreement for not being its signatory.
2002 YLR 975 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. SIKANDAR BEGUM VS Syed SHABAHAT ALI
#NAME?
1982 SCMR 741 SUPREME-COURT
RIAZ VS RAZI MUHAMMAD
—–S. 13 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 3-ConsentDefinition–Definition of “consent” or free-consent in Contract Act, 1872 applies to provisions of Specific Relief Act under residuary clause of S. 3 of Specific Relief Act.-[Words and phra
1981 CLC 1416 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ILYAS HUSSAIN VS SHAHABUDDIN
13-Mutuality in contract-Contract of sale clearly showing names of two purchasers jointly with third purchaser-Such two purchasers not signing contract but both executing power of attorney in favour of third joint purchaser who signed contract-Seller (appellant) accepting earnest money and also a further sum of maximum money-Held, it does not lie in seller’s mouth to say that contract lacked mutuality-Held further, mere absence of their signatures on contract does not render contract void and privity of contract existed between them and seller.
1968 PLD 723 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HOSHANG VS DR. EDDIE P.BHARUCHA
Contract Act 1872 S. 13–Champerty-Afere fair that plaintiff was poor or was being financed by others-Not sufficient to prove that suit was champertous.
1961 PLD 823 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAL VS SIDDIQ
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96 (3) read with O. XXIII, r. 3 and O. XLIII. I (m)-“Consent decree”-Words and phrases-“Consent”-Explained-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 13-“Consent decree” not confined to decree passed under r. 3, O. XXIII-Test for determining whether decree is “consent decree”-Oaths Act (X of 1873), S. 11-Decree, whether “consent decree”-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLHI, r. 1 (m)Decree not preceded by order recording agreement-Whether appeal-able- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 99.
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.).