Agreement through Fraud, undue influence and coercion

What is the difference between fraud and undue influence?

It is the case law which described about agreement through undue influence and fraud and how you 

Agreement through Fraud, undue influence and coercion

What is the difference between fraud and undue influence?

It is the case law which described about agreement through undue influence and fraud and how you 

When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion fraud?

What is agreement coercion?

What is 7 undue influence?

2024 C L C 1340

[Islamabad]

Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Arbab Muhammad Tahir, JJ

PAK-TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED through Head of Legal Affairs----Petitioner

Versus

Messrs DYNAMIC ENGINEERING SERVICES through Chief Executive----Respondent

R.F.A. No.145 of 2016, decided on 16th April, 2024.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O.VI, R.4---Fraud, undue influence and coercion---Pleadings---Necessary ingredients---Scope---In cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, parties' pleadings must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on such particulars---Mere allegation of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion not supported by any material does not invariably warrant inquiry or investigation in each case.

       Messrs Dadabhay Cement Industries Ltd. v. National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi PLD 2002 SC 500 rel.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 10, 42 & 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 15 & 16---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.4---Suit for recovery of money, declaration and injunction---Coercion and fraud---Proof---Respondent / plaintiff filed suit against appellant / defendant on the plea that agreements in question were signed by fraud, undue influence and coercion---Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff---Validity---Party complaining of having executed an agreement as a consequence of coercion or undue influence exerted by beneficiary of such agreement is expected to lose no time in seeking its cancellation---Though suit for declaration and recovery was filed by respondent / plaintiff within limitation period prescribed by law but no plausible explanation was presented by respondent / plaintiff for two-month delay in filing the suit---Such delay was of significant importance as respondent / plaintiff was seeking declaration, which was an equitable remedy---If a party claims that he entered into an agreement as a result of coercion and undue influence, then he should immediately file suit for cancellation of such agreement---Respondent / plaintiff was unable to prove coercion, undue pressure or absence of free will in signing the agreement, undertaking and modification deed---Prayer of declaration made by respondent / plaintiff with respect to modification deed and recovery of Rs.75,377,250/- could not have been allowed by Trial Court, in circumstances---High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

       Dilber Hussain Hashmi v. Muslim Commercial Bank 2001 SCMR 265; Faisal Fabrics Limited v. Town Committee, Khurrianwala 2000 CLC 4; Hamida Begum v. Murad Begum PLD 1975 SC 624; Federation of Pakistan v. Javaid Nasim PLD 1994 Lah. 303; Ijaz Ahmed Khan v. Jahanzeb Khan 2016 CLC Note 128; Sardar Ahmad Hayat v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue 2020 CLC 31; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Munir Alam v. Mehboob Alam 2015 YLR 500; Abbas Ali Shah v. Ghulam Ali 2004 SCMR 1342; Rahim Dad v. Hamayun Shah 2020 MLD 103; Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon PLD 2011 SC 296; Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 61; Raja Hamayun v. Sarfraz Khan Noor Muhammad 2007 SCMR 307; Muhammad Rasheed Khan v. Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa 2009 SCMR 740; Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Ibrahim PLD 1989 Lah. 440; Haji Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Abdul Khaliq 2013 CLC 1850; Sikandar Hayat v. Sughran Bibi 2020 SCMR 214; Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad v. The State 2018 SCMR 1385; Abdullah v. Amjad Ali Shah 2003 SCMR 894 and Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar 2022 SCMR 1054 ref.

       Khawaja Hasan Riaz, Jamil Ahmad Abbasi and Malik Talat Hussain for Appellant.

       Ch. Mushtaq Hussain, Muhammad Azam Khan Niazi and Raheel Azam Khan Niazi for Respondent.

 

اہم نکات:

1. دھوکہ دہی، جبر اور دباؤ کے الزامات:

ان الزامات کے لیے درخواست میں مکمل اور واضح تفصیلات فراہم کرنا ضروری ہے۔

صرف الزامات لگانا کافی نہیں؛ شواہد کے بغیر عدالت معاملے کی تحقیقات کے لیے مجبور نہیں ہوتی۔

2. معاہدے کی منسوخی کے لیے فوری کارروائی:

اگر کوئی شخص دعویٰ کرے کہ معاہدہ جبر یا دباؤ کے تحت کیا گیا ہے، تو اسے جلد از جلد معاہدے کی منسوخی کے لیے درخواست دائر کرنی چاہیے۔

غیر ضروری تاخیر، جیسا کہ اس کیس میں دو ماہ کی تاخیر، عدالت میں درخواست کے جواز کو نقصان پہنچا سکتی ہے۔

3. ثبوت کی اہمیت:

فریق کو یہ ثابت کرنا ہوگا کہ معاہدہ آزاد مرضی کے بغیر اور دباؤ یا جبر کے تحت کیا گیا۔

اس کیس میں درخواست گزار یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔

4. منصفانہ اصول (Equitable Remedy):

معاہدے کی منسوخی یا دیگر منصفانہ ریلیف کے لیے درخواست دیتے وقت درخواست گزار کا رویہ اور فوری اقدام اہم ہیں۔

5. ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ منسوخ:

ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ قانونی اصولوں کے مطابق نہیں تھا، اور اپیل کو منظور کرتے ہوئے درخواست گزار کے حق میں دی گئی ڈگری کو منسوخ کر دیا گیا۔

یہ نکات عدالت کی جانب سے دھوکہ دہی اور جبر کے الزامات کے قانونی دائرے کو واضح کرتے ہیں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.