2012 C L D 1659
[Balochistan]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J
COMMISSIONER MEKRAN and another ---Petitioners
Versus
Haji ABDUL WAHID and 7 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.184 of 2010, decided on 2nd May, 2011.
Contract Act (IX of 1872) ---
----Ss. 2(a), 2(b) & 2(c) ---Agreement ---Whether signed letter issued by the authorities to the
plaintiffs co nstituted an agreement within the meaning of S.2 of the Contract Act, 1872 ---
Valid agreement ---Scope ---Plaintiffs had filed a suit against the authorities for the
enforcement of a letter addressed to them, which the plaintiffs contended to be an agreement
between the parties ---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and upheld in appeal by the
appellate court below ---Contention of the authorities was that no agreement was executed
between the parties and the letter in question could not be considered a s an agreement within
the meaning of S.2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872 ---Validity ---Letter in question neither bore
the signature of the government official ( petitioner) nor the district officer (petitioner)
concerned had any authority to issue such a lett er---For the constitution of a valid agreement
there must be at least two persons, i.e. promisor and promisee, who agreed with their free
consent to a lawful object and legal consideration, as required by S.2 of the Contract Act,
1872 ---Letter in question only contained the signatures of one of the plaintiffs and, therefore,
did not fall within the definition prescribed in S.2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872 ---Letter in
question had not been executed by the competent person ---Mere signing of a letter could not
be termed as a "valid agreement" within the meaning of S.2 of the Contract Act, 1872,
therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree of enforcement of the letter in
question ---Revision petition was accepted, judgment and decrees of both the cou rts below
were set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Hakimsons (Impex) Ltd. 1983 CLC 1251; Government
of N. -W.F.P. and others v. Bahadur Khan 1985 CLC 1457 and Michal Assely and others v.
Messrs Abdul Sattar and Brothers PLD 1960 Kar. 346 distinguished.
Abdul Aziz Khilji, Additional A. -G. for Petitioners.
Ali Ahmed Kurd for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th April, 2011.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---This Civil Revision Petition u nder section 115,
C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18 -1-2010 passed by Majlis -e-
Shoora, Mekran at Turbat whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 23 -
7-2009 passed by Qazi, Turbat was dismissed.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for declaration, injunction
and enforcement of letter No.754 -56/relief (R.B) dated 23rd July, 2007 in the Court of Qazi,
Turbat on 24 -8-2009 with the averments that they are owners of the property si tuated at Koh -
e-Murad and the same was decreed in their favour upto High Court. It was further averred in
the plaint that the defendant/petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 executed an agreement
on 23 -7-2007 for installation of temporary Khaima Basti ov er the land decreed in favour of
plaintiffs/respondents for ten months and it was agreed between the parties that the facilities
of water and electricity available on the property in question would be handed over to the
respondents after completion of said period. It was also averred in the plaint that after laps of
24 months they contacted the petitioners for performance of agreement, whereupon they
refused to abide by the terms of the agreement.
The suit was contested by the petitioners, who through the ir joint written statement denied the
execution of agreement and also raised certain preliminary objections. The learned trial Court
out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issue: --
After framing of above said issue, arguments were heard by the learned Qazi, Turbat, who
decreed the suit on 16 -10-2009. The petitioners being dissatisfied preferred an appeal before
the Majlis -e-Shoora, Makran at Turbat, which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 18 -1-2010, hence this peti tion.
I have heard the learned Additional Advocate -General representing the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate -General vehemently
contended that the petitioners raised specific legal objection with regard to maintainability of
the suit and in fact no agreement was executed between the parties and that letter dated 23 -
7-2007 under no provision of law can be considered as an agreement within the meaning
of section 2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872, therefo re, the Court below acted illegality and with
material irregularity decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. He further
argued that on the basis of mere letter the respondents have not been able to establish the
existence of a valid ag reement between the parties.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Courts below after
proper appreciation of facts have decided the issue legally, without committing any illegality
and irregularity. The learned counse l further pointed out that there are concurrent findings of
facts arrived at after proper appreciation of facts on record, which do not warrant any
interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He in support of h is
contentions referred to cases of Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Hakimsons (Impex) Ltd.
(1983 CLC 1251), Government of N. -W.F.P. and others v. Bahadur Khan (1985 CLC 1457)
and Michal Assely and others v. Messrs Abdul Sattar and Brothers (PLD 1960 (W. P) Karachi
346).
I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined
the material available on record. Admittedly, there is nothing on record in the form of an
agreement executed between the parties. In fact it i s the case of respondents that there is a
letter addressed to the respondents by the petitioner No.2 in shape of agreement, which
neither bears the signature of petitioner No.1 nor the petitioner No.2 had any authority to
issue such like letter. It is an e stablished principle of law that for the constitution of a valid
agreement there must be at least two persons i.e. promisee and promisor, who agree with their
free, consent a lawful object and legal consideration, as required by section 2 of the Contract
Act. In the instant case letter dated 23 -7-2007 only contains the signature of respondent No.2,
whereas section 2(b) of the Contract Act defines Contract as an agreement enforceable by
law. An agreement or a contract made between the competent parties with their consent for
lawful consideration and lawful obligation is binding on the parties but there should be a
valid contract. In the instant case the letter dated 23 -7-2007 does not fall within the definition
prescribed in section 2(b) of the Contract Act. Moreover, in the instant case written letter by
E.D.O was not executed by the competent persons and the respondents also failed to prove
the same. I am of the considered view that letter dated 23 -7-2007 neither fulfils the
requirement of agreement as defin ed in section 2(a)(b) and (c) of the Contract Act; whereas,
mere signing of letter could not be termed as a valid agreement within the meaning of section
2 of the Contract Act, thus the respondents are not entitled to any decree for enforcement of
letter d ated 23 -7-2007. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in
view of the above discussion are distinguishable and are not applicable to the peculiar facts of
this case.
For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to accept thi s petition and set aside the
judgment and decree dated 23 -7-2009 passed by Qazi, Turbat and judgment and decree
dated 18 -1-2010 passed by Majlis -e-Shoora, Makran at Turbat, resultantly the suit filed by
the respondent is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
MWA/38/Q Petition accepted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.