Mst. REHMAT BEGUM vs MEHFOOZ AHMED Internal aids for interpretation — 2024 PLD 1108 SUPREME-COURT

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

Mst. REHMAT BEGUM VS MEHFOOZ AHMED Internal aids for interpretation---Illustrations in a statute, purpose of---Internal aid of interpreting any statute or its provision can be derived primarily from the statute itself including its preamble, illustrations, headings, marginal notes, punctuation, transitory provisions, etc.---Illustrations should not be considered redundant or inconsequential, as they are evenly significant and constructive for securing the proper meaning of the provision---While they cannot influence the ordinary connotation of the section, they are beneficial to demonstrate the means and methods by which such sections are set in motion while interpreting the law. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1108 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. REHMAT BEGUM VS MEHFOOZ AHMED O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Principles relating to rejection of plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C stated. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1108 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. REHMAT BEGUM VS MEHFOOZ AHMED Ss. 12 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), Ss. 2(9), 2(17) & 5---Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 4, 32, 39 & 40---Suit for specific performance of agreement, recovery and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Partnership agreement---Agreement for transfer of shares between partners---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---In the present case the business entity was being operated through a registered partnership firm between the two partners i.e. the petitioner (defendant) and respondent No. 1 (plaintiff)---Said business was neither a corporate entity nor was it incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, or the Companies Act, 2017 therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 5 of the Companies Act, 2017 was misconceived and fallacious---As a matter of fact, Section 5 had no applicability or nexus in the matter---Therefore, it had nothing to do with the pending suit between the parties---Substratum of the plaint did not highlight any dispute with regards to the business of the partnership firm, nor did anybody approached the Court for dissolution of the partnership firm or rendition of accounts; but for all practical purposes, the respondent No.1 only entered into an agreement for buying out 50% share of the petitioner in the partnership firm against a valuable consideration, and due to the alleged breach and non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement, respondent No.1 filed the suit for specific performance of contract with some other ancillary reliefs---All the prayers mentioned by the respondent No.1 were not considered (by the Trial and Appellate Court) which had independent status and were not dependent upon the alleged right of execution of sale deed or transfer of 50% share of the partnership firm in favour of respondent No.1 against a valuable consideration---According to respondent No.1, the partnership business was a going concern and he wanted to buy out 50% share of another partner---The effect of the agreement in question was also to be decided by the Trial Court on whether the arrangement in question could be construed as an agreement for relinquishment of share or retirement from the firm---On the alleged consensus ad idem, the contract was signed, and on the alleged breach, respondent No.1 filed the suit---Court cannot force someone to file a suit for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts, but it has to see whether specific performance of contract is possible or not, and in this case, unless the parties were provided equal opportunity to lead the evidence, it was not possible to decide the matter summarily on the basis of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.---At present stage, the Trial Court could not presume or anticipate the outcome that if the case was made out on merits and the Court granted a decree of specific performance, what the plaintiff would do with the partnership business, and whether he would induct any other partner, continue as proprietor, or convert it into a corporate entity of business---That was not the issue before the Court right now---At present, the lis only related to the alleged sale agreement of 50% share of another partner against some valuable consideration---This was the core issue and dispute between the parties which needed to be adjudicated by the Trial Court---High Court had rightly set-aside the orders of Trial Court and First Appellate Court, whereby the plaint was rejected, and remanded the matter to Trial Court with directions to decide the suit on merits---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused.

Mst. REHMAT BEGUM vs MEHFOOZ AHMED Internal aids for interpretation — 2024 PLD 1108 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD