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. 735 of 1980, decided on 7th October, 1984.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S.5(1)‑‑Public auction‑ Highest bid having been accepted, respondent directed to deposit balance amount by a particular date and remove goods‑‑Auction unilaterally cancelled before specified date‑‑Order set aside in Constitutional jurisdic tion on ground that sale transaction had already been completed and could not be cancelled‑‑Decision upheld by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Rana M.A. Kadri Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1984.
‑The respondents were the highest bidders at the public auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat, petitioner No.2, on 5‑6‑1978 for the sale of lots of timber. The bids were accepted by petitioner No.2 on 7‑6‑1978 and he directed the respondents to deposit the balance‑price on or before 25‑6‑1978 and remove the timber by 5‑8‑1978. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, petitioner No.l, however, unilaterally cancelled the transaction of sale by an order dated 20‑6‑1978.
Lahore High Court on being moved by respondents in a Constitu tional petition set aside the impugned order of the first petitioner on the ground that the sale‑transaction in respondents favour had already been completed and the first petitioner had no right in law to cancel it. ,
Petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, and the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that since some of the respondents had failed to deposit the balance‑price, the first petitioner, could competently set aside the sale transaction. But surely this was not the reason shown in the impugned order, nor was such a plea advanced before the High Court. Even otherwise, this plea has no support in the record before us. The High Court has very rightly held that since the transaction of sale was otherwise complete, there was no scope in law for the first petitioner to unilaterally cancel the transaction.
For these reasons, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer