| Case ID |
2cd71d25-8393-46cf-94bd-ae834030e31c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Second Appeal No. 29 of 2005 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 20, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 07, 2009 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant, confirming the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the appellant's plea regarding the limitation of the appeal was unfounded, as the calculations for the court fee were valid. The court emphasized that evidence regarding the existence of a valid contract between the parties had been properly appreciated by the lower courts. The appeal was determined to have been filed within the required time frame, granting the appellant exclusion of the period during which the application for a certified copy was pending. The court reiterated that it could not reassess the evidence presented in the lower courts, as such matters pertain to factual determinations rather than legal errors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a dispute concerning the leasing and ownership of a Suzuki Margalla car, which was claimed by the respondent, AXACT CYBER SOLUTIONS, as part of a settlement for unpaid software development fees. The appellant argued that there was no valid contract for the transfer of the car, as it was under lease from Crescent Leasing Corporation. The Sindh High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, stating that the appellant's arguments regarding the validity of the contract and the issue of court fees were without merit. The case highlights important aspects of contract law, the significance of evidence in determining ownership, and the procedural rules regarding appeals in civil cases. The court also addressed issues related to the Limitation Act and the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the need for timely action in legal proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that factual matters are generally not subject to re-examination in second appeals unless there are clear legal errors. This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes regarding leased property and the obligations of parties in contract negotiations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
AXACT CYBER SOLUTIONS,
Crescent Leasing Corporation
|
| Judges |
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Salman Hamid,
Abdul Karim Khan No.1
|
| Petitioners |
Gulf Garments
|
| Respondents |
AXACT CYBER SOLUTIONS THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 1540 = 2010 YLR 155
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 2003 SC 410,
1986 MLD 1286,
1991 MLD 437,
PLD 1984 SC 208,
1980 SCMR 36,
2008 SCMR 190,
1996 SCMR 137,
PLJ 1996 SC 1128(sic),
2005 YLR 2003,
PLD 1955 FC 38,
PLD 1981 Karachi 170,
2001 CLC 104,
2007 CLC 36,
PLD 2006 Karachi 155,
PLD 2006 Karachi 523
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
42,
54,
S.100,
O.XX,R.5,
12
|