Section 17 : “fraud” defined
2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN
Ss. 17 & 18—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Fraud and misrepresentation, meanings of—Words “fraud”, “misrepresentation” and “want of jurisdiction” have not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,—It is appropriate to borrow plain meanings of ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation’ from the dictionary as well as from Ss. 17 & 18 of the Contract Act.
2017 YLR 58 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mirza SHAKIR BAIG VS Miss IFFAT CHUGHTAI
12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 65, 36, 37, 17, 10 & 55—Suit for specific performance of contract—Interim order restraining creation of third party interest—Effect—Fraud—Interim order restraining the creation of third party interest with regard to suit property was in field—Contention of plaintiff was that alleged agreement to sell was void—Validity—Act of vendor would not prejudice the right of vendee to seek enforcement of his rights if vendor had title even at later stage or recovery of compensation if vendor failed in perfecting title of vendee—Injunctive order did not hold the status of a ‘decree’ and same would not make an agreement void unless vendor was not competent to enter into a contract at such time or was subsequently declared so—Defendants had no intention to deceive the plaintiff and they were ready to perform their part subject to payment of balance consideration—Silence or concealment of some immaterial facts would not qualify the term ‘fraud’—Defendants were competent to enter into contract and agreement to sell—Non-disclosure of injunctive order was not sufficient to declare the agreement ‘void’—Defendants communicated their intention to the plaintiff to perform their part while requesting to place draft deeds for execution thereof but plaintiff avoided the same—Plaintiff avoided to pay balance consideration—Plaintiff was not entitled for restoration of earnest money—Defendants had admitted the claim of plaintiff to the extent of agreement and they were ready to perform their obligations—Suit of plaintiff was decreed subject to deposit of remaining consideration amount within one month failing which earnest money deposited with Nazir would be returned to the defendants—If defendants failed to make title of plaintiff perfect on payment of remaining consideration amount then earnest money should be restored to the plaintiff.
2017 YLR 58 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mirza SHAKIR BAIG VS Miss IFFAT CHUGHTAI
17—‘Fraud’—Ingredients—Main ingredient of “fraud” is the intention to deceive or to induce a person by misrepresentation or active concealment to enter into a contract on a false belief.
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 YLR 188 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ABDUL ZAHIR VS KHUDA-E-DAD
Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54—-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129 (g)—West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 52—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 17 & 18—Suit for declaration, possession, cancellation and permanent injunction—Maintainability— Limitation— Mutation challenged on ground of fraud and misrepresentation—Proof—Presumption in favour of entries in record-of-rights and periodical records—Court may presume existence of certain facts—Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming separation of his share through demarcation of suit property on ground that he had purchased suit property from joint Khata from predecessor of defendants by way of mutation entry—Defendants also filed suit for declaration, cancellation of the mutation entry in favour of plaintiff, possession and permanent injunction claiming that plaintiff, with connivance of revenue authorities, had got suit property mutated in his favour—Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff and dismissed the one filed by defendants—Appellate court reversed findings of Trial Court and decreed suit of defendants—Both parties raised objection of limitation—Validity—Plaintiff had first filed application for demarcation of suit property before Revenue hierarchy, which fact had not been disputed by defendants—Plaintiff, having purchased suit property from predecessor of defendants, had stepped into his shoes and become co-sharer—Limitation for demarcation of suit property arose when right of plaintiffs had been declined by defendants—Plaintiff’s suit was, therefore, within limitation—Limitation for cancellation of the mutation entry was three years under Art. 91 of Limitation Act, 1908—Mutation of inheritance recorded in favour of defendants had reflected that they were aware of the mutation entry in favour of plaintiff before filing of present suit—Defendants, in their pleadings, had not mentioned date when they had come to know about mutation entry in question—Suit filed by defendants for cancellation of the mutation entry was, therefore, barred by limitation—Appellate court had decided question of limitation on wrong premise—Plaintiff, being joint recorded owner of suit property, had every right to seek relief from competent court pertaining to his right arising out of mutation entry—Impugned mutation entry had never been challenged by predecessor of defendants during his life time—Defendants, both in their written statement and suit subsequently filed by them, had initially challenged mutation entry in question on ground of fraud and misrepresentation, but they later had withdrawn said ground by filing application for amendment of their pleadings—Defendants had challenged the mutation entry also on ground that the mutation was neither signed nor attested by witness mentioned in list of witnesses, but subsequently, they had abandoned said witnesses by filing an application to that effect—Best evidence, which could be produced by defendants, had not been produced and the same had been intentionally withheld, for which adverse inference was to be taken against them under Art. 129 (g), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Presumption of truth was attached to revenue record in terms of S. 52 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which was rebuttable—Defendants had not elaborated alleged forgery and misrepresentation either in their pleadings or through evidence—Defendants had not led any evidence to prove that the entry in revenue record was collusive and fraudulent—Defendants failed to rebut presumption of truth attached to the mutation entry—Entries in favour of plaintiff appeared in Jamabandi, which was strong evidence in his support and required rebuttal—Mere verbal assertions made by defendants could not be taken as rebuttal to the mutation entry in favour of plaintiff—High Court, setting aside impugned judgments and decrees of appellate court, maintained decision of Trial Court—Revision petition filed by plaintiff was allowed, while the other filed by defendants dismissed.
2016 CLD 527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB AHMAD VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED
17— Fraud— Proof— Allegations of fraud require specific evidence establishing unequivocally malfeasance or a misrepresentation made with a design to get benefit for oneself or misleading the other into a course of action, detrimental to its rights.
2016 CLC 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB AHMAD VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED
17—Fraud—Proof—Allegations of fraud require specific evidence establishing unequivocally malfeasance or a misrepresentation made with a design to get benefit for oneself or misleading the other into a course of action, detrimental to its rights.
2015 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD
First Sched. Arts. 91 & 142—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8 & 39—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(g) & 17—Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney, sale agreement and sale deed and recovery of possession of immoveable property—Property transferred under a void and fraudulent agreement—Suit filed by owner of such property for its possession—Limitation period—Scope—Plaintiff, who was owner of suit property, allegedly executed and got registered an irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of the defendant/attorney—Defendant on basis of such power of attorney sold out the suit plot to a third person, who in turn sold it to the appellant—About 16 years after the date of execution/registration of the general power of attorney in favour of defendant, plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of documents and possession of the suit land alleging that the power of attorney, sale agreements and sale deeds were obtained by fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and manipulation—Trial Court dismissed the suit on the basis that it was barred by limitation, as limitation period for filing a suit for cancellation of documents was three years—High Court, however, decreed the suit on the grounds that suit being for possession of immovable property was filed within twelve years and was thus within the time limit—Legality—Appellant did not prove any of the documents on which he based his claim—Appellant neither proved the general power of attorney nor the deeds witnessing the alleged sale transactions nor confronted the respondent therewith—Plaintiff, in such circumstances, did not need to institute a suit for declaration or cancellation of documents, which had no existence—Plaintiff needed to institute a suit for possession on the basis of title within a period of 12 years, and that was what he did—Appellant who was left with sheer possession could not defend it in a possessory suit instituted by the plaintiff on the basis of title—Failure to question a transaction within the period of limitation would certainly matter, if it had any existence and effect, but where it had no existence and effect, it could not in any manner have life breathed into it, and passage of time or length of years could not give it any existence and effect—Building a castle of limitation in defence of such a transaction or its beneficiary on the basis of documents which were neither produced nor proved, would amount to building a castle in the air—Such exercise would be all the more unwarranted when the beneficiary (i.e. appellant) himself did not stir even a straw to prove his claim—Although the law of limitation ensured order in the society but it could not be used as a bulwark to perpetuate a gain having its origin in fraud which not only vitiated the most solemn transaction but the very fabric of the society—Shielding a transaction based on fraud and forgery would be more chaotic and disorderly than undoing it—Limitation could not shield a transaction having no effect and existence on account of fraud and forgery—Plaintiff, in the present case thus could not be non-suited on account of his failure to institute a suit for declaration or for cancellation of documents within the time provided by the statute—High Court had rightly held that plaintiff’s suit was for possession of suit property, which was filed within the limitation period of twelve years—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.[Minority view].
2015 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD
Preamble—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17—Limitation could not shield a transaction having no effect and existence on account of fraud and forgery.
2015 CLC 1675 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NOOR ALAM VS MUHAMMAD BASHIR
Ss. 30 to 33—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.182, 2(b) & 17—Application for making award rule of court—Maintainability—General power-of-attorney—Rules of construction— “Arbitration agreement” as compared to “compromise”—Nature and purpose—Appointment of arbitrator by attorney—Requirement of specific authorization—Fraud alleged on part of attorney—Effect—Parties entered into arbitration agreement regarding dispute over suit property, and award of arbitrator was submitted before court by respondents—Trial court accepting application of respondents made the award rule of court on statement of petitioner’s general attorney—Petitioners filed objection petition under Ss.30 to 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for cancellation of the arbitration agreement and award on ground that their said attorney had played fraud upon them as he had no power to enter into arbitration agreement and make statement before court—Trial court and appellate court dismissed the objection petition—Respondents took plea that power of attorney to enter into compromise would include power to enter into arbitration agreement—Validity—Power-of-attorney should have been construed strictly—Agent could exercise only those powers, which were expressly, unambiguously and specifically delegated to him and were specifically mentioned in document of power of attorney—Power-of-attorney, in the present case, did not contain anything to empower the agent to enter into arbitration agreement or even refer to arbitration, and the words only referred to power to enter into compromise and submit compromise deed before court—Arbitration agreement was not compromise as appointment of arbitrator was substitution of court with one person or panel of persons and empowering nominated person or panel of persons to resolve dispute between parties—Nowhere in arbitration agreement was any mention that petitioners were appointing arbitrator through their attorney except at the end thereof words “through general attorney” were mentioned—As petitioner had denied appointment of arbitrator, respondents were under legal duty to prove that the alleged attorney had powers to enter into arbitration agreement—As settled principle of law, agent must have been specifically authorized to appoint arbitrator and implied authority of agent to appoint arbitrator could not be presumed—Alleged attorney had no authority to enter into arbitration agreement on basis of general power-of-attorney—Impugned judgments of courts below were set aside and application for making award rule of court was dismissed—Revision petition was accepted in circumstance.
2011 SCMR 986 SUPREME-COURT
Mst. ZULAIKHAN BIBI VS Mst. ROSHAN JAN
17—`Fraud’—Definition—Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed, or judgment, or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and can be questioned at any time so much so that they can be ignored altogether by any court of law before whom they are produced in any proceedings—Question of fraud is never purely a question of law—Principles.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 & 22—“Coercion”, “undue influence “, “fraud”, “misrepresentation”, “mistake”-Scope-“Consent”-Ingredients-Where all the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract have been accepted by the parties freely and at their own, contract does not fall within the ambit of “coercion” as defined in S.15 or “undue influence” as defined in S.16 or “fraud” as defined in S.17 or “misrepresentation” as defined in S.18 or “mistake” as enshrined in Ss.20, 21, 22 of the Contract Act, 1872—All agreements or contracts are made by the free consent of parties—“Consent” is said to be free as provided under S.14 of the Act, when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake subject to the provisions of Ss.20, 21 & 22 of Contract Act, 1872—Principles.
2011 PLD 183 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAH alias UMAZ SHAH VS Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA
42-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17—-Sale of immovable property—Sale consideration, inadequacy of—Effect—Such inadequacy could not be made ground for declaring transaction invalid without showing fraud have been played by transferee.
2008 SCMR 1182 SUPREME-COURT
Mst FATEH BIBI VS MUHAMMAD SAEED
42—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.17, 18 & 25—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Suit for declaration—Sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants including her mother—Plaintiff after more than 15 years challenged validity of sale deed on ground of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration—Proof—Plaintiff’s own brother was available in transaction along with her husband and one of the vendees to the extent of 1/3rd share was her own real mother—If any fraud was intended to be committed, mother should not at all have been shown as a vendee and her real brother as marginal witness to sale deed—Had plaintiff not entered into valid transaction, she would not have slept over matter for such a long period—Suit was hopelessly time-barred—Plaintiff infact had sold suit property for consideration and no fraud or misrepresentation had taken place—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2008 CLC 726 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AYAZ BUILDERS through Attorney VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KARACHI PORT TRUST
Ss. 126 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Mobilization advance guarantee, encashment of—Injunction, grant of—Scope—Mere encashment of entire amount under such guarantee would not amount to fraud—Encashment of such guarantee could be stayed on ground of injustice to plaintiff.
2008 CLC 726 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AYAZ BUILDERS through Attorney VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KARACHI PORT TRUST
Ss. 126 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Bank guarantee, encashment, of—Injunction, grant of—Scope—Mere allegation of fraud and blackmailing, would not be sufficient to stay encashment of a bank guarantee.
2008 CLC 726 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AYAZ BUILDERS through Attorney VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KARACHI PORT TRUST
Ss. 126 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2-Bank guarantee, encashment of—Injunction, grant of—Scope—Mere irretrievable injustice without a prima facie case of established fraud would be of no consequence in restraining encashment of bank guarantee.
2007 YLR 1636 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. ASIA LATIF VS TARIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN
—Ss. 41 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.17—Transfer by ostensible owner on basis of sale deed procured by fraud—Validity—Subsequent transferee would still he entitled to protection of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2007 YLR 1636 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. ASIA LATIF VS TARIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN
—Ss. 41 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.17—Transfer by ostensible owner on basis of sale deed procured by him by fraud through an impersonator, as original owner was dead at relevant time—Legal heirs of deceased owner neither obtained in their f
2007 CLC 427 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF VS BADRUDDIN AHMED
—-Ss.17 & 23-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—High Court appeal—Doctrine of pari delicto—Applicability—Contract opposed to public policy—Effect—Escalation of prices and specific performance of contract—Scope—Agreement, the considera
2005 PTD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED through General Manager VS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and 2 others
—S. 17—Fraud—Connotation—Deception, which does not deceive, is not fraud, rather same is only an attempt.
2004 MLD 501 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL HAMEED through Legal Heirs VS JEHAN KHAN
—-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Fraud, definition of—Petitioners were not able to establish the misstatement or concealment of the facts by the respondents to obtain the impugned judgment—Petitioners could have pointed out fraud
2003 CLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
SHIPYARD K. DAMEN INTERNATIONAL VS KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.
—-Ss.126, 127, 10, 17 & 18—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Bank guarantee and letter of credit—Nature and effect—Rights and liabilities of surety/Bank, principal debtor and creditor under Bank guarantee and principal contra
2003 PLD 191 SUPREME-COURT
SHIPYARD K. DAMEN INTERNATIONAL VS KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.
—Ss. 126, 127, 10, 17 & 18—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Bank guarantee and letter of credit– -Nature and effect—Rights and liabilities of surety/Bank, principal debtor and creditor tinder Bank guarantee and principal contr
1999 CLC 1057 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAZA HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD KHAN
12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 17 & 18—Specific performance of contract of sale of land made by female who was Pardanashin and illiterate lady—Protection to Pardanashin and illiterate lady —Entitlement–Plaintiff who also happened to be Advocate of vendor lady in different litigations relating to her lands, had claimed that the lady had agreed to sell disputed land for consideration through agreements of sale arrived at between him and vendor lady—Lady who allegedly executed contract of sale having died, her grandsons who were made defendants in suit had alleged that deceased who was a Pardanashin lady was over 100 years of age at the time of execution of alleged agreements of sale and was incapable of exercising her free consent and that deceased lady was absolutely illiterate and plaintiff in his capacity as her standing counsel might have got several documents thumb-impressed by her without appraising her of their implications—Court had concluded that alleged agreements of sale executed by lady were not binding on defendants as plaintiff was unable to discharge burden of satisfying Court that she had executed agreements with full knowledge and consent—Validity—Vendor lady who was proved to be Pardanashin and illiterate was entitled to protection which law had afforded to illiterate and Pardanashin women and said protection was different from one of fraud or misrepresentation vitiating a contract—Allegation of fraud must be proved by a person alleging same, whereas when a transaction was made by a Pardanashin lady, onus was always on person claiming advantage of such transaction to show that same was made with free-will of Pardanashin lady—No fault could be found with judgment of Court on ground that Court had examined said question irrespective of fact that fraud was not proved in transaction.
1997 SCMR 1456 SUPREME-COURT
ALLAH JOWAI VS WALI DAD
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 17 & 18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Transaction of sale by plaintiff (lady)—Plaintiff challenged sale on ground of fraud and misrepresentation—Trial Court found that plaintiff was assisted by her son at registration of sale-deed, therefore, independent advice was available to her–Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing plaintiff’s suit was maintained up to High Court—Validity—Plaintiff’s contention was that independent advice was not available to her at the time of registration of sale-deed for her son was son-in-law of defendant—Such aspect of matter was not considered by High Court—Leave to appeal was, thus, granted to examine, whether in circumstances of case, independent advice was not available to plaintiff at registration of sale-deed in question.
1997 PLD 267 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JOHN PAUL VS IRSHAD ALI
Contract Act 1872 S. 17—Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings—Every representation made to Court which was deliberately false would amount to fraud.-[Fraud].
1997 CLC 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAWAKKAL EXPORT CORPORATION VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Contract Act 1872 S.17—Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings.
1997 CLC 1260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALTAF
Contract Act 1872 S. 17—“Fraud”—Connotation—Effect—Duty of Court in dealing with any situation where slightest allegation of fraud and collusion was raised, explained and illustrated.
1996 MLD 1587 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, TARBELA DAM RESETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION, WAPDA, GHAZI VS HIKMAT KHAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S.17—“Fraud”—Meaning, scope and import illustrated—[Words and phrases].
1996 MLD 377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BAGGU VS RAHIMAN BIBI,
Contract Act 1872 —-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Plaintiff lady was deprived of her inheritance through mutation in question—Appellate Court on basis of evidence on record decreed plaintiff’s suit by setting aside Trial Court’s judgment and decree whereby her suit had been dismissed—No material irregularity or illegality in judgment in question was pointed out to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction—Judgment of Appellate Court being well-reasoned and not against weight of evidence on record, was maintained in circumstances.
1996 CLC 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD, VS SPECIAL JUDGE BANKING, LAHORE
Ss. 126 & 17—Irrevocable letter of guarantee—Fraud—Effect—Payment against irrevocable letter of guarantee could not be stopped unless there was fraud on the face of documents produced before the Bank to the knowledge of Bank concerned.
1996 CLC 1565 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS TUFAIL HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 17—Allegation of fraud—Agreement between parties on basis of which possession , of land in question measuring one Kanal and three Marlas was handed over to respondent by appellant—Appellant executed affidavit stating that he had given land in question to respondent for constructing a house due to personal relations with him—Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on basis of statement of appellant cancelled his allotment and allotted the same to respondent—Appellant’s review application before Custodian was accepted and allotment in favour of respondent to the extent of 3 Marlas was cancelled on his plea that he had transferred to respondent only 1 Kanal of land and not 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas—High Court, however, set aside order of Custodian on the ground that no proof had been brought forward in support of allegation of forgery—Validity—View taken by High Court that forgery had not been proved was plainly correct—Appellant having alleged forgery was required to prove the same but he gave no evidence in support of alleged forgery—Apart from it, measurement of 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas was mentioned in affidavit sworn by appellant and statement made by appellant before Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner—Same measurement was given in recommendatory note submitted by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner—Order of Custodian impugned before High Court contained no mention of allegation of forgery—Justice of the case did not warrant order passed by Custodian—Apart from said fact, appellant had admitted in written statement filed before High Court that respondent after allotment of such plot to him had constructed thereon, a house—Appellant, in earlier affidavit had submitted that he had given to respondent land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas for construction of his house—Allotment permit was issued in favour of respondent on the statement of appellant and the same related to 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas—Only negative factor was the confusing fact pointed out by Custodian that Rehabilitation Commissioner had accorded sanction to 1 Kanal and not tb 1 Kanal arid 3 – Marlas—Custodian’in absence of positive evidence should not have exercised his power of review in a matter which was a past and closed transaction- –High Court had, thus, correctly set aside order of Custodian.
1995 CLC 1061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Contract Act 1872 S. 17—Qanun-e-Siahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 118—Fraud—Mode of proof–When any party to a lis had alleged fraud with regard to a document then initial burden to prove execution of said document would be on the party which was relying on it —Once such onus was discharged, burden to prove factum of fraud would shift on ti4t party which had alleged fraud.
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 PLC(CS) 1443 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
AKHTAR ALI MONGA VS THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS
—-Ss. 17 & 18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 24—Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R. 6—Charge of misconduct against civil servant to the effect that he failed to prefer appeal against a decree of Civil Court whi
1993 SCMR 618 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
Contract Act 1872 —-S.17—Fraud—Definition—Allegation of fraud—Burden of proof—Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed or judgment, or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and can be questioned at any time and can be ignored altogether by any Court of law before whom they are produced in any proceeding—Duty of Court in such a case stated.-[Fraud–Burden of proof].
1993 SCMR 145 SUPREME-COURT
SHAMIR VS FAIZ ELAHI
?
1993 MLD 2454 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR BEGUM VS RASHID AHMAD
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 17—Penal Code (XE V of 1860), S.25—Expressions “fraud” and “fraudulently’ as defined in Contract Act, 1872 and Penal Code, 1860–Connotation.
1990 MLD 2329 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ZAFAR IQBAL VS INSPECTOR-GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS, BALOCHISTAN
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 17 & 18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Onus to prove pleas of fraud, misrepresentation etc.—Petitioners having merely alleged mala fides, fraud and misrepresentation on the part of respondents onus was entirely upon them to prove such allegations—Except vague suggestions, there was absolutely nothing on record to establish factum of fraud, misrepresentation or mala fides—Enquiry for ascertaining such aspects could not be launched while deciding Constitutional petition.
1989 CLC 2117 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MERCANTILE FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN VS IMAM & IMAM LTD.
Contract Act 1872 Ss 17 & 18–Fraud and misrepresentation–Meaning, scope and import of-Difference between fraud and misrepresentation is one of intent though the effect of either may be the same viz. obtaining of an advantage which, but for the facts alleged, may not have been obtainable.
1987 CLC 2244 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS FATEH MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 S. 17–Fraud–Transaction induced by fraud–Effect–Exchange deed wherein defendants showed themselves as full owner of property, were guilty of suggesting a fact which was not true and which they knew or had reason to believe was not true– Defendants, by such representation having deceived or induced plaintiffs to enter into exchange with them were guilty of fraud within meaning of S. 17-Exchange deed entered into by plaintiffs was a deed voidable at their option as their consent was secured through fraud.
1985 SCMR 1705 SUPREME-COURT
MAHMOOD BAKHSH VS ALLAH BAKHSH
—Art. 185(3)–Contract Act (I of 1872), S. 17-Fraudulent transaction–Plea that vendor was insane at time of sale made by him–No such proof had been brought on record inasmuch as doctor examining vendor had opined that vendor was suffering from senile
1982 CLC 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS NASIRUDDIN
17-Contract of Insurance-Concealment of fact in-Insured ship encountering mechanical defect resulting in failure of battery-Anchor snapping-Respondent not disclosing such position of ship before securing insurance extension-Held, insured bound to disclose every circumstance which would influence decision of insurer in either insuring risk or fixing rate of premium.
1977 SCMR 479 SUPREME-COURT
FARZAND ALI VS MUHAMMAD ARIF
— S. 6 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17-Transfer-FraudAlleged scribe of power-of-attorney proved to be a fictitious person-Marginal witnesses of deed not examined-Attestation of document denied by official alleged to have attested it Agreement
1977 PLD 74 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAISTA GUL VS QAZA KHAN
—-S. 42 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17-Fraud-Positive fraud actually misleading Court alone vitiates decree-N alleged to have consented to decree on J’s assurance on oath that he was not pre-empting for Q or alienating land to him subsequent
1973 PLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS AMEEJEE VALEEJEE & SONS VS MESSRS AMERICAN PRESIDENTS LINES LTD
Contract Act 1872 S. 17-Agreements in restraint of trade-Provision intended to invalidate many agreements valid under Common Law. Section 2″. Contract Act, 1872 prohibits all agreements in restraint of trade; and it is intended to invalidate many agreements that are valid under the Common Law. But enacting section 27, the Legislature has made an express E3eparture from English Law. That is also the view of the authorities. Therefore, English cases, and judgments in which; such cases were followed, are not good law. It is the duty of the Courts to give effect to the plain language of section 27, and not less so because the departure from to c Common Law has perhaps checked the growth of cartels and monopolies.
1969 SCMR 299 SUPREME-COURT
BHANO VS A. M. SAEED
—No law provides special quantum of evidence for establishment of fraud-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17.
1969 PLD 662 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MIR GHAUS BAKHSH BIZANJO VS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS
463 and Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17-Forgery-Fraud – Essential ingredient – Bad intention-Mere interpolation, authorised or unauthorised–No proof of forgery or fraud – No fraud or forgery without bad intention.
1967 PLD 153 SUPREME-COURT
ABDUL WAHID VS ZAMRUT
Fraud-Never a pure question of law-High Court ‘in exercise of extended jurisdiction provided by S. 34, N.-W. F. P. Courts Regulation, 1931-Competent to interfere-N.-W. F. P. Courts Regulation, 1931, S. 34-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 17.
1967 PLD 391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS WILAYAT BEGUM
(e) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 10, 16 & 17-Clear distinction exists between mere inadequacy of consideration for transfer of property and securing its transfer by mean v of fraud or undue influence for inadequate consideration.
1966 PLD 121 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUR REHMAN VS KHALILUR REHMAN AND OTHERS
Gift – Right of revocation dies with donor-Suit for revocation-Donor’s death during pendency of suit or appeal Legal representatives not entitled to continue proceedings-Suit not for revocation (rijaa) but for cancellation (tansikh) of gift deed stands on different footing-Such suit not only competent but right to sue survives after death of plaintiff donor-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 39 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 15, 16, 17 & 18.
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.