Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 16abc519-621b-4113-af33-ca46def6ef87
Body View case body.
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