Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 341 of 1972, decided on 22nd November 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 28th June 1972, in L. P. A. No. 57 of 1971).
Evidence Act (I of 1872),
S. 115‑Estoppel‑Allottee of evacuee factory, on its being auctioned in favour of another, offering to pay same price as offered by auction‑purchaser‑Offer accepted, possession restored, and allottee making part payments‑Challenge thrown, six years later, that being allottee of factory, Department could, under relevant rules, charge from him only market value of property and his contract to pay higher amount, being against statute, was unenforceable‑Petitioner, held, estopped from challeng ing price of property and bound to pay contracted price‑Writ petition additionally suffering from laches, no ground made out for in terference by Supreme Court‑.Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. I, para. 14.
E. A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf P L D 1964 S C 536 distinguished.
Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd November 1972.
The dispute between the parties is in respect of National Cotton Factory, Khanpur, which was transferred to the petitioner at a price of Rs. 6,52,.;00. This property was auctioned in favour of another person. The peti tioner, in order to oust that person, offered to pay the same price which that purchaser had offered. His offer was accepted and he was given possession of the Factory. The petitioner did not raise any objection for a period of six years and made part payments. He enjoyed the fruit of the concern as well.
After a period of six years, he woke up and started challeng ing the price which he had himself agreed to pay. His writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 57 of 1971 and a Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated the 28th June 1972, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
The short question for consideration in this petition is whe ther the petitioner can get out of the contract made by him with the Settlement Department.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of E. A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf (PLD1964SC536) and has contended that a party cannot contract out of the statute. It would appear that the petitioner's case is that he was an allottee of the Factory in dispute and the Department under the relevant rules could charge from him the market value of the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the petitioner's contention is that the Department should charge from him only the market value of the property in dispute. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the price of the property in dispute. He offered Rs. 6,52,000 and bound to pay that amount. Besides, his writ petition suffer from laches. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer