Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 14th April 1970, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 107 of 1964).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 58 (3)‑Civil matter -Appreciation of evidence, not function of Supreme Court where High Court has given cogent reasons based on evidence in support of its finding.

(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872),

S. 73‑Damages for breach of contract‑Particular criterion available for determining basis of damages‑Damages cannot be assessed on basis of market price.

Naimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

K. A. Ghani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th August 1970.

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑

This petition arises out of a suit for refund of money deposited as price of blankets and for recovery of damage on account of the petitioner's failing to supply the blankets to the respondents in accordance with the sample which formed the basis of the contract between them. The suit was decreed by the then High Court of West Pakistan Karachi Bench. The petitioner has now impugned before us the order of the High Court on the ground that that Court did not take into consideration certain material facts in coming to its findings that Exh. 69 was the sample in question. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has in this connection drawn our attention to certain papers contained in the paper book of the High Court in order to show that the Exh. 69 was not the sample in question. These papers, which have not been annexed to the present petition, did not, in our opinion, support the petitioner's contention. The High Court has given cogent reasons based on evidence in support of its finding that Exh. 69 was the sample in question. What the learned Advocate, however, wants is that we should make our own appreciation of the evidence in the case. This is outside our function.

It is admitted, however, that the goods did not agree with the sample Exh. 69 which has been found by the High Court to be the sample in question.

We have also been addressed on the question of damage. It has been contended that the basis for the damage should have been the market rate instead of the respondent's forward con‑ R tract in respect of the said blankets. Our short answer to this is that where a particular criterion is available that should form; the basis of the damage and not the market price.

There is no substance in this petition, it is accordingly dis missed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.