Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 185(2)(d)(e)---Direct civil appeal---Gift mutation---Revenue forums exhausted on merits---Subsequent suit for declaration---Second bite at the cherry---Jurisdictional flaw or mala fides not shown---Suit property measuring 200 kanals, khata No.153, Mouza Sumra Thal Kalan Janoobi, Tehsil Choubara, District Layyah, was owned by Mst. Parveen Batool and was claimed to have been gifted to her son, the appellant, vide gift mutation No.609 dated 29.12.1996, accepted with delivery of possession---Challenge by a daughter before the District Collector, Layyah, was rejected on 27.08.1997; appeal was rejected by the Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 10.10.1998; revision was accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 16.01.2002 and the gift mutation was ordered to be cancelled---Appellant then filed a suit for declaration against that decision; Trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.07.2009; Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 16.04.2010 and decreed the suit; High Court in civil revision set aside the appellate judgment, upheld the Trial Court and dismissed the suit---Held, that the revenue forums were adjudicatory forums where reliefs were claimed and denied on merit---Once those revenue forums were exhausted, the civil court was approached as a second bite to the cherry---Neither any jurisdictional flaw nor any mala fides was shown---In the absence of those, a second recourse cannot be provided to a litigant---Suit was rightly dismissed---Appeal dismissed. (b) Administration of justice---Doctrine of election---Choice of forum---Held, that once the choice of forum to confer jurisdiction is exercised, the doctrine of election would also come in the way of a subsequent civil suit seeking to re-agitate the same matter after revenue forums have decided it on merit, in the absence of jurisdictional flaw or mala fides. Disposition: Civil appeal dismissed. (C.A. No.1495 of 2017, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, decided 20.05.2026; Approved for Reporting.)

Summary: (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872) ---- Ss. 124 & 125 --- Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) ---- S. 75 --- Contract of insurance as a contract of indemnity --- Liability confined to risks covered --- Limitation as to use --- Exclusion clause --- Appellant purchased a Hyundai Shehzore vehicle which was insured with the respondent company under a comprehensive policy covering, inter alia, the risk of theft, for the period 11.10.2007 to 10.10.2008 --- Vehicle, employed with a driver and stated to be used for transportation of a third party's goods, was allegedly stolen on 14.12.2007; F.I.R. No.725 of 2007 under S. 381-A, P.P.C., was registered on 16.12.2007 --- Insurer did not accept the claim --- Insurance Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of 75% of the insured amount on a non-standard basis, along with liquidated damages at 5% per annum from the date of loss till realization --- High Court allowed the insurer's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment --- Held, that a contract of insurance is, in its essence, a contract of indemnity within the meaning of S. 124 of the Contract Act, 1872, and the liability of the insurer is confined strictly to the risks covered under the policy and cannot be extended beyond the agreed terms --- Policy contained an explicit limitation as to use of the vehicle --- Admitted position on the record was that the vehicle was being used for transportation of goods belonging to a third party and was hired for such transportation --- Such use fell outside the scope of the permitted use under the policy and squarely attracted the exclusion clause, thereby taking the claim beyond the coverage contemplated by the contract of indemnity --- Though the incident of theft was covered under the policy, what was more important was its use when it was stolen; the prohibited clauses played an influential role, personal use of the vehicle and not use for transportation of goods of a third party being contemplated, and the theft cover yielded in favour of the prohibition when such use was strictly excluded in the insurance contract --- That understanding of the contract was enough to decline the claim. (b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) ---- S. 75 --- Doctrine of uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) --- Held, that contracts of insurance are governed by the doctrine of uberrimae fidei, as recognized under S. 75 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, which obligates the parties to act honestly and to refrain from taking unfair advantage of one another --- Where the insured person, in clear violation of the terms of the policy, employs the vehicle in a manner expressly prohibited, he cannot subsequently seek to enforce the contract on terms favourable to himself while disregarding its binding conditions. (c) Insurance --- Surveyor's report --- Evidentiary value --- Breach of policy conditions relating to allocation of risk --- Non-standard settlement --- Held, that a surveyor's report constitutes a relevant and significant piece of evidence, particularly where it identifies specific breaches of policy conditions --- In the present case, the report did not merely record the occurrence of theft but also highlighted circumstances indicative of non-compliance with the stipulated safeguards under the policy --- Tribunal, in granting relief on a non-standard basis, appeared to have treated the breach as peripheral, without adequately considering whether it had a bearing on the risk assumed by the insurer --- Question is not whether every breach must automatically defeat a claim, but whether the breach in question is of such a nature as to alter the contractual allocation of risk --- Where the breach relates to a condition intended to minimize or control the insured risk, its disregard cannot be lightly brushed aside on equitable considerations alone --- Tribunal's approach reflected an insufficient engagement with the contractual framework governing the parties. (d) Evidence --- Withholding of best evidence --- Non-production of driver --- Appellant failed to substantiate the occurrence of theft through reliable and cogent evidence --- Most material witness, namely the driver of the vehicle, who was stated to be present at the time of the alleged incident, was not produced before the Tribunal --- His non-examination, without any plausible explanation, amounted to withholding of the best available evidence --- In the absence of such evidence, the version put forth by the appellant remained uncorroborated and did not inspire confidence so as to warrant acceptance --- Appellant, having failed to establish his claim in accordance with law, and having admittedly acted in violation of the fundamental terms of the policy, was not entitled to any indemnification --- High Court had rightly interfered with the judgment of the Tribunal. Cited Cases: • Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ravi Steel Company PLD 2020 Supreme Court 324 Disposition: Civil Appeal dismissed. (C.A. No.122-L of 2017, Supreme Court of Pakistan, judgment by Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J. (Yahya Afridi, C.J. and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. on the Bench), Islamabad, 20.05.2026; Approved for reporting.)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The intent of parties and terms of contract determines the nature of bailment, if it was a pledge or hypothecation.