| Case ID |
16abc519-621b-4113-af33-ca46def6ef87 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
High Court Appeal No. 405 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 03, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 01, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Division Bench of the Sindh High Court upheld the decision made by the Single Judge, which directed the appellants (defendants) to pay a total of Rs. 48,50,991/- and Rs. 40,32,000/- to the respondent (plaintiff) as compensation for the work completed. The court found that the evidence presented by the respondent, including photocopies of the measurement book, was admissible as no objections were raised at the time of its presentation. The court emphasized the importance of the Measurement Book and noted that the custodians of the document did not take appropriate action when it went missing. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of the evidence presented in the case. |
| Summary |
In the case of High Court Appeal No. 405 of 2017, the Sindh High Court ruled on a dispute involving the compensation for construction work carried out by the respondent, a government contractor. The case revolved around the admissibility of secondary evidence due to the misplacement of the measurement book, a critical document that recorded the work done. The court emphasized the responsibility of the custodians of the measurement book and affirmed that, despite the photocopies being produced as evidence, the absence of objections during the trial rendered them admissible. This case highlights the importance of procedural correctness in legal proceedings and the implications of evidence handling in court decisions, making it a significant reference for similar cases involving contractual disputes and evidence law. Key phrases such as 'compensation for construction work', 'admissibility of evidence', and 'measurement book' are pivotal in understanding the legal principles at play, and they represent trending topics in legal discussions. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN,
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI
|
| Lawyers |
Miran Muhammad Shah, Addl. A.G.,
Malik Naeem Iqbal
|
| Petitioners |
PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY WORKS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND 5 OTHERS
|
| Respondents |
JAVED BALOCH
|
| Citations |
2020 SLD 2412 = 2020 MLD 1965
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Farooq v. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui and others 2014 SCMR 630
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
|
| Sections |
42,
76,
3
|