1003/1979 Suit AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED (Plaintiff) V/S P.D.O.H.A. (Defendant)

1003/1979 Suit AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED (Plaintiff) V/S P.D.O.H.A. (Defendant) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 02-OCT-14

"(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Specific performance of agreement---Indoor management, doctrine of---Applicability---In terms of doctrine of indoor management, plaintiff cannot be made to suffer for any deficiency on the part of defendant to follow informal procedure internally adopted by it. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129---Two presumptions---Applicability---Where there are two presumptions and both are equally claimed to be balanced, court must yield for one which best accords with facts. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129 (g)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os.XI & XVI---Withholding of evidence---Presumption, raising of---Principle---In order to raise presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it is not necessary to follow procedure of giving notice for production of documents under O.XI, C.P.C. or to summon documents under O. XVI, C.P.C. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Agreement---Proof---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Claim of plaintiff was that earlier suit was withdrawn subject to conditions mentioned under letter dated 17-6-1974---Plea raised by defendant society was that the letter in question was result of fraud---Validity---Plaintiff, as per its plaint had unequivocally accepted offer contained in letter in question and further withdrew proceedings initiated by it---Although details of earlier suit filed by plaintiff did not come on record during evidence but such averment had been reaffirmed by plaintiff's witness in his deposition---Nothing was on record from the side of defendant to controvert such assertion of plaintiff and defendant was estopped in law from turning its back and resiling from commitment made through letter dated 17-6-1974---Defendant invited offers for transfer of plot in question in response thereto plaintiff submitted offers and the same were accepted by Managing Committee of defendant society and unconditional offer was communicated to plaintiff without any reservation---Such was an unqualified acceptance and constituted valid contract for transfer of subject property by defendant to plaintiff---Defendant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in allotment made in favour of plaintiff, therefore, it could not cancel the same---Suit was decreed in circumstances."