ABDUL KAREEM vs MUHAMMAD BASIL Ss — 2023 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL KAREEM VS MUHAMMAD BASIL Ss. 2(d) & 10---Promise---Scope---Consent as on essential requirement of a contract---Burden of proof---Suit for recovery of property (gold) or in the alternative prevalent market price filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by Trial Court---Appeal filed by petitioners/defendants was dismissed by Appellate Court---Held, that it appeared from the record that the parties signed an agreement and a promissory note---During trial one of the witnesses from respondent/ plaintiff side produced both said documents i.e. the agreement and promissory note, without any objection of petitioners/defendants and petitioners did not question the authenticity of both the referred documents, meaning thereby the petitioners accepted the terms mentioned in the agreement---Under S.2(d) of the Contract Act, 1872, promise must be absolute and unqualified---Unequivocal acceptance of an offer was a binding contract and even non-execution of a formal document could not absolve the parties from their agreement---No party could unilaterally add or resume the terms of a contract---Parties to the contract should be free from coercion---Person who signed a contract of his free will was bound to its terms and condition---Petitioners/ defendants in written statement had admitted the agreement and had not denied the signing of the agreement ,meaning thereby the parties had signed the agreement with consent which was essential requirement of the contract---Contract was signed by the parties without coercion, threat, fraud or misrepresentation, thus they were legally bound by their words and deeds---Petitioners had admitted the agreement but had taken the plea that they paid the profit and original gold to the respondent/plaintiffs---Burden of proof shifted on the shoulder of petitioners/defendants to prove that they made payment of profit and original gold to plaintiff---None of the petitioners/defendant's witnesses mentioned the date, time ,year of payment and mere bald assertion that payment was made did not absolve the defendants from their responsibility---Even the second defendant in his deposition did not deny the execution of documents---Revision was dismissed.

ABDUL KAREEM vs MUHAMMAD BASIL Ss — 2023 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD