Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY COMMUNICATION AND WORKS

The Section 42 lawsuit for the plaintiff, which the authorities granted the toll tax collection agreement for a three-year initial period, prayed in its declaration that the authorities be directed to extend the said contract by two more years. Has been done The plaintiff's position was that according to the terms and conditions of the contract, he was entitled to an extension of 5 years with a further extension of 5 enhancements, and the contract delivery expected an extension of two more years, Only on two terms; first with the consent of the parties. And second, that with the approval of the competent authority of the plaintiff it was not that he had the sole right to extend the contract, nothing was provided in the terms of the contract that neither party could extend without the consent of the extension. Force the contract to continue. On the record it is shown that neither the authorities nor any authorities were informed of the authority's consent to the extension of the contract, in the absence of the consent of the authorities to extend the contract, the plaintiff Was given no right, which could fall under the scope of section 42. The Appellate Court of the Special Relief Act, 1877, correctly found in circumstances that it was not capable of sustaining the case that could be excluded. In the absence of any irregularity in the jurisdiction of the appellate court, its decision cannot be interfered with by the High Court. famous supreme court advocate from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer