معاہدے کی شرائط سے باہر ہرجانے کا دعویٰ قابلِ قبول نہیں — لاہور ہائی کورٹ
مقدمے کا پس منظر
پنجاب حکومت نے Varan Tours کے ساتھ چھ مخصوص روٹس پر 150 بسیں چلانے کا معاہدہ کیا۔ قانونی اور عملی رکاوٹوں کے باعث بسوں کا آپریشن متاثر ہوا، جس پر کمپنی نے آمدن کے نقصان اور ہرجانے کا دعویٰ کیا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
ٹرائل کورٹ نے کمپنی کا دعویٰ جزوی طور پر منظور کرتے ہوئے پنجاب حکومت کے خلاف ہرجانہ عائد کیا۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بینچ نے قرار دیا کہ کمپنی آمدن کے نقصان کا قابلِ اعتماد ثبوت پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہی۔ مزید یہ کہ معاہدے میں معاوضے کی مخصوص صورتیں پہلے ہی طے کی گئی تھیں، اس لیے ان شرائط سے باہر اضافی ہرجانے کا مطالبہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
اہم قانونی اصول
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ فریقین معاہدے کی طے شدہ شرائط کے پابند ہیں اور عدالت ایسے اضافی ہرجانے کی اجازت نہیں دے سکتی جس کی معاہدے میں گنجائش موجود نہ ہو۔
نتیجہ
ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ کا ہرجانے کا فیصلہ ختم کرتے ہوئے کمپنی کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا اور پنجاب حکومت کی اپیل منظور کر لی۔
کیس: 2026 CLC 1358 — Province of Punjab v. Messrs Varan Tours
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 1358
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Sadaqat Ali Khan and Ch. Sultan Mahmood, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others --Appellants
Versus
Messrs VARAN TOURS and others ---Respondents
R.F.As. Nos. 161, 162 and 167 of 2014, heard on 3rd December, 2025.
Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)---
S. 69-A-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 56-Suit for recovery of damages---Contractual liabilities-Doctrine of supervening illegality... Pre-requisites for applicability-Operational hurdles-Appellant/defendant was was the Provincial Government which entered into a franchise agreement with respondent/plaintiff to ply 150 buses on six specified routes but operation of buses was disrupted due to failure to resolve disputes within a stipulated period under S. 69-A of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965-Trial Court partially decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff and awarded damages against appellant/defendant---Validity-Evidence on record did not support claim of loss of revenue---Testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses showed that respondent/plaintiff failed to establish any contractual or factual basis for such claim-Any loss during the relevant period, if suffered, could only be due to operational reasons and not attributable to termination under a clause of the agreement---Franchise Agreement conferred a right to seek compensation but such entitlement was expressly restricted to three specific heads enumerated therein-Loss alleged on account of premature discontinuance of Franchise Agreement did not fall within those heads-Any claim for damages not expressly provided under the Franchise Agreement stood excluded---Suit for recovery instituted by respondent/plaintiff was not supported by the contractual framework governing the parties-Claim of respondent/plaintiff was premised on doctrine of supervening illegality recognized under S. 56 of the Contract Act, 1872--For applicability of S. 56, it was incumbent upon respondent/plaintiff to establish that appellant/defendant had prior knowledge of subsequent illegality or had withheld a fact rendering performance unlawful---No such prior knowledge or concealment was proved-Contract may be frustrated by a subsequent event, however, the negotiated contract embodied in the Franchise Agreement provided a structured mechanism for determination of compensation--Terms of agreement were consciously negotiated and binding on both parties-Neither party could resile from or evade agreed contractual obligations---Parties were entitled only to those reliefs which were agreed and ascertainable under the negotiated terms and not otherwise---High Court aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court for recovery of damages and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff--Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Malik Gul Muhammad Awan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 507; Mrs. Alia Tareen, Managing Director, Pakistan General Hospital, Quetta and others v. Amanullah Khan, Advocate and 3 others PLD 2005 SC 99; Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1983 3 SC SC 344; 344; Sa Sandoz Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1995 SCMR 1431; Messrs Jaffer Bros. Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another PLD 1978 Kar. 585; Bharathi Knitting Co., v. DHL Express AIR 1996 SC 2508; Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta 2021 SCMR 1241; Messrs Mansukhdas Bodaram v. Hussain Brothers Ltd. PLD 1980 SC 122; Port Qasim Authority, Karachi v. Al-Ghurair Group of Companies and 3 others PLD 1997 Kar. 436; Mary v. State of Kerala 2014 SCMR 1728 and Khalid Rashid v. Kamran Lashari, Chairman, C.D.A, Islamabad and others 2010 SCMR 594 rel.
Imran Shaukat Rao, Assistant Advocate General for Appellants.
Abdul Rasheed Awan for Respondents.