' SYED ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. The appellants through this appeal impugn the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore to the tune of Rs,27,70,000 with liquidated damages as compensation at the rate of 10% from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that respondent/decree-holder is a registered contractor of the appellants! Judgment-debtors. He supplied the printed banners on the oral order issued by the appellant/judgment-debtors in connection with the eradication of Malaria and Aids. These items allegedly were entered in the stock register of the appellants/judgment debtors but the payment was not made. The respondent filed many applications, reminders and an application to the C.M.
Secretariat but of no avail. The respondent- A decree holder was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court and in reply therefore the claim of the respondent/ decree-holder was acknowledged. It was disposed of with the direction that the matter be finalized within four weeks.
A criminal original was filed alleging that the order was not complied with. It was withdrawn with permission to file a civil suit. In the suit the decree for recovery of Rs,27,70,000 as price of the goods along with damages of Rs,20,00,000 was prayed for.
3. The appellants filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections and on facts it was averred that the matter had been inquired into by two committees and no proof of supply of goods was established and the suit was false and collusive. It was also asserted that Dr. Rafiq Hussain, Ex- Director, E.P.I. While submitting reply to writ petition had made obliging statement and that disciplinary action was recommended against him as also against the store keeper Taj Muhammad etc.
4. The learned trial Court put the parties on trial on the following.
ISSUES:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit and the suit is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the recovery of Rs,27,70,000 and Rs,20,00,000 on account of damages as prayed for? OPP (iv-A) Whether the suit is not within time? OPD (iv-B) Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands, if so, its effect? OPD (iv-C) Whether the suit is based on mala fide and has been filed just to grab the money from Government. Treasury? OPD
(v) Relief.
5. The learned Civil Judge recorded evidence for and against the above issues and on conclusion of the trial, found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent' B and against the defendants/appellant. The suit was consequently decreed as aforementioned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while criticizing the findings on Issue No,4, mainly argued that a contract in which a Provincial Government or the Federal Government is party, has to be in writing and that in the present case, according to the showings of the plaintiff/respondent himself, the agreement was oral and that, therefore, his suit could not have been decreed. He further submitted that Malik Muhammad Waseem P.W.1 and Muhammad Taj P.W.2 did not give any details or particulars of the oral contract and that the documents Exh. P.1 to Exh. P.4 being uncertified copies, could not have been relied upon. Referring to Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shandat Order, 1984, he added that Exh.P.6 was also not admissible in evidence. According to him, the statements of Dr. Arshad Iqbal Dar D.W.1 Ahmad Rafique D.W.2 and Dr. Ahmad Hassan D.W.3 were worth reliance. He submitted that the documents Exh. D.1 to Exh.D.3 should have been given precedence. He relied upon the cases of Bhikrai Jaipuria v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 113, Yelamanchili Siva Panchaksharamma v. Yelamanchili Chhinabbayi, AIR 1967 SC 207, Province of Punjab through District Collector and 2 others v. Messrs Said Traders 2006 YLR 484, Maqsood and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31, Khan Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and 2 others PLD 1973 SC 160 and Malik Muhammad Akram v. Khuda Bakhsh 2000 CLC 759.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder relied upon the cases of Ali Muhammad Khan iv. Riazuddin Khera PLD 1981 Kar 170 Government of N.-W.F.P. And 3 others v.
Bahadur Khan 1985 CLC 1457 and Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs 1993 SCM R 183. He then referred to Chapter 1 of the Purchase Manual of the Government of the Punjab and claimed that the suit was rightly decreed. He submitted that post facto sanction of the oral purchase order was accorded through letter dated 24-11-1994 which was brought on record as Exh.
P.6 testified by Malik Dost Muhammad P.W.3. He also referred to the documentary evidence Exhs. P.1 to Exh. P.5 and Exhs. P.7 to Exh. P.9.
8. We have examined the evidence on record in purview of the arguments advanced of both the parties. Dr. Rafique Hussain who was Director of purchase at the relevant time was not produced despite the fact that his name was duly mentioned by the appellants in the list of witnesses. He had acknowledge the claim of the plaintiff/respondent while submitting reply before the Honourable High Court. The pleas that he had made an obliging statement to unduly support the claim of the C plaintiff/respondent, was not substantiated on record. It was submitted that disciplinary action was recommended against him and the store keeper etc. However, it was not shown as to what had happened further. Mere recommendation for initiating disciplinary action, was of no consequence. The plaintiff/ respondent was never proceeded against. The inquiry reports being one sided and no legal efficacy. The provisions of Article 173(3) of the Constitution ordained that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of a Province would be expressed to be made in the name of President or as the case may be the Governor of the Province and all contracts shall be finalized on behalf of the President on the Governor by such persons and in such manner as may be directed or authorized. An observant reading of this provision of the Constitution would show and show clearly that an oral agreement was not prohibited. It is not the case of the defendants/appellants that the oral agreement was not made with free consent of the parties or the parties were not competent to contract or consideration of the contract was not lawful or its object was not lawful or the oral agreement was D otherwise void. Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 did not exclude an oral contract from being enforced although in case of an oral contract, clearest and more satisfactory evidence would be demanded by the Court. A reference to Chapter 1, para. 2 (note)(1) of the Purchase Manual Government of the Punjab would also be apt. This provision deals with transactions in case of emergency situations. In the present case, Exh. D.6 was a document which showed that post facto sanction of the oral purchase order was accorded through letter dated 24-11-1994.
9. The authorities relied upon by the defendants/appellants were not apt similes in the circumstances of the case.
10. After examining the entire evidence on record, we quite see that the evidence produced by the plaintiff/decree-holder, outweighed the evidence of the defendants/ appellants. We therefore, uphold the findings on issues No,4 as recorded by the learned trial Court.
11. The fate of issues Nos. 1, 2, 4-b and 4-c is dependent on the findings on Issue No,4. We, therefore, decide these issues also in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent/decree holder and against the appellants/defendants.
12. The other issues were inconsequential and were indeed not argued.
13. The impugned judgment and decree, which have been passed, after through examination of evidence of the parties, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Appellant has failed to make out a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence either so as to call for interference in this appeal.
14. For the foregoing, this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.