Find a Lawyer

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD. versus MESSRS PUNJAB TRADING AGENCY?DEFENDANT

ection Section 42 title Title Declaration of Lis Lease Relief Right to Assistance The principle lis 'retention of lease' and 'entitlement to relief' are two separate things - 'rehabilitation of lease' Legal questions regarding the legal character of this person. Is a provision of section 42 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, which requires a person to be entitled to any legal role or property, to deny his or her title against any person. Or they may be prosecuted for their interest and the court has arbitrarily declared a declaratory right in it. - The law allows an individual to sue for his or her right or title to the enforcement of his or her right over any property, relief 'relief is a question of fact, which is proved by evidence. [P. 289]

PLD 2017 Sindh 276

Before Arshad Hussain Khan, J

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD.—Plaintiff

versus

Messrs PUNJAB TRADING AGENCY—Defendant

Suit No.571 of 1997. decided on 28th September. 2016.

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)—

—S.42—Declaration of title—Maintainability of lis—Entitlement of relief—Principle—Question of ‘maintainability of lis ’ and ‘entitlement of relieff are two distinct things—‘Maintainability of lis’ is legal question related to legal character of person under the provisions of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, which requires any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property may institute suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration he is so entitled—Law authorizes a person to seek enforcement of his right to any property by instituting a suit against a person denying his right or title—‘Entitlement to relief is question of facts to be proved through evidence. [p. 289] A

Parveen Begum and another v. Shah Jehan and another PLD 1996 Kar. 210 and Abdul Razzak Khamosh v. Abbas Ali and others PLD 2004 Kar. 269 rel.

(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)—

—Ss. 148 & 150—Suit for recovery of money and damages—Bailor and bailee—Relationship—Contract of bailment—Plaintiff corporation handed over stocks of rice to defendant company and the same were accepted by defendant on the basis of ‘Book Balance9—Plaintiff alleged that defendant company failed to exercise all care in respect of stocks and sought recovery of cost of deficient stocks and damages— Validity—To constitute effective bailment contract, it was obligatory on the part of bailor to put bailee in possession of the goods—Actual tender and delivery of goods and acceptance thereof by bailee must be there, and must be actual and physical transfer of possession—Merely putting into possession of documents of title did not constitute bailment of goods—Contact was awarded to defendant on ‘Book Balance * basis without any physical verification of stock of rice which was lying in godown in dumped position—Such stock could not be assumed that a

proper account could be made without physical verification of stock, which was not done, despite various requests and letters by defendant— In the grain handling contract there was inherent risk of diminishing quantity and quality of food grains and ratio of the losses was inversely proportionate to the nature of storage, which could vary from case to case basis—Longer the duration, greater the quantum of losses—Crops in question were related to year 1988-89, handling contract of which was earlier awarded to some other persons and on their failure the left over stocks were entrusted to the defendant through subject contract— Stock in question was lying in the godown of plaintiff in a dumped condition for a considerable period of time—Every possibility existed that stocks in question had diminished quantity and quality due to infestations and other factors—Defendant apprehending such facts infÓrm;ed plaintiff at the very outset of the contract but plaintiff did not pay any heed and took no step to safeguard the stocks to mitigate the losses—Suit was dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 294, 308] B & C

Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Messrs Al-Noor (Pvt) Ltd. 2008 MLD 755; Trading Corporation of Pakistan Shahrah-e-Faisal Karachi v. Messrs Continential Cargo Services, Shahrah-e-Liatquat Karachi PLD 2004 Kar. 281; Parveen Begum and another v. Shah Jehan and another PLD 1996 Kar. 210 and Abdul Razzak Khamosh v. Abbas Ali and others PLD 2004 Kar. 269 ref.

Messrs Rice Export Corporation v. Messrs A.H. Corporation and 3 others 2002 CLC 607 rel.

Mohammad Safdar for Plaintiff,

Khalid Daudpota for Defendant.

Date of hearing: 7th September, 2016.

family advocate from Mirpur Khas lawyer