Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: R.A (SHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: R.A (Civil Revision) 33/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - P. O Sindh thr: Health Department Govt of Sindh (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as R.A (SHC). In this matter between R.A (Civil Revision) 33/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - P. O Sindh thr: Health Department Govt of Sindh (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: R.A (Civil Revision) 33/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana CITATION: 2025 SHC LAR 3546 PARTIES: P. O Sindh thr: Health Department Govt of Sindh (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 18-NOV-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANO
Civil Revision Application No. S-33 of 2025
Applicants The Province of Sindh & others : Through Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar Addl. A.G assisted by Mr. Aftab Ahmed Bhutto, Asst. A.G.
Respondent Shabir Ahmed Abbasi
: Through Mr. Zamir Ali Shah, Advocate Date of hearing : 15.09.2025
Date of judgment
:
18.11.2025
Date of announcement
:
27.11.2025
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through this Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the Applicants have challenged the Judgment and Decree , both dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Larkano (Appellate Court ) in Civil Appeal No. 133/2024 whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Larkano (Trial Court) in FC Suit No.122 of 2024. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Respondent Shabbir Ahmed filed FC Sui No.194 of 2022 against the Applicants herein stating therei n that the Plaintiff/Respondent is a Government Contractor. In the month of July 2020, Defendant No.1, who has b een arrayed as Applicant No.3 herein, issued Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for supply of diet to the patients of Chandka Medical College Hospita l and Shaikh Zaid Women Hospital, Larkano (hereinafter referred to as “the hospitals”) for the year 2020-21 in various newspapers. The Plaintiff joined such bid and after succeeding, he was awarded contract vide letter dated 18.08.2020 and was advised to s tart the supply of diet as per requirements/demand of Diet Incharge. Plaintiff supplied such diet until the end of contract till
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-2- 30.06.2021 and he was issued all payments thereof. Thereafter, after ending of the said contract, the tender for financial year 2021-22 was to be commenced from the month of July , 2021, but Defendant No.1 could not complete such formalities ; however, vide letter No. CMCHL/ACCTTS:/11044/49 Plaintiff was demanded to supply diet material for the hospitals for the financial year 2021 -22 at the rates of previous year till finalization of tender process for the year 2021 -22. On such demand, the Plaintiff supplied diet material for the months of July, August and September 2021 and Plaintiff was paid amount of such supply of diet except for an amount of Rs.9,00,800/- which was withheld from the month of September 2021. Meanwhile, Defendant No.1 after making publications in newspaper and cancelling tenders several times, issued new tender in which Plaintiff and others joined to bid but none of the bidders was granted such tender. However, the Plaintiff upon demand of Defendant No.1, continued supplying diet material to the hospitals and submitted such bills but he was not issued payment for the month of October 2021; due to such non -payment Plaintiff also made written request to do the needful . Thereafter, two months before end of the financial year, Defendant No.1 again issued fresh Notice Inviting Tenders for the financial year 2021 -22 in the Daily Kawish new spaper‟s issue dated 04.04.2022 which was again cancelled by publishing another advertisement in the same newspaper‟s issue dated 12.04.2022. However, the Plaintiff continued to supply food items as per demand of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff continuously supplied the diet material to the hospitals till end of the financial year i.e. June 2022 and kept submitting bills of each month to Defendant No.1 but the Plaintiff was not made any payment as Defendant No.1 kept him on hopes of awarding the fresh NIT. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed CP No. D-354/2022 before the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Larkano wherein Defendant No.1 filed comments admitting therein , that bills of the Plaintiff were under process and the delay had been caused due to pendency of NIT process for the year 2021-22 and after completion of the same, bills of the Plaintiff would be finalized in accordance with law. After being satisfied on such comments, the Plaintiff did not press the petition which was dismissed accordingly. On 01.08.2022, Defendant No.1 wrote to Defendant No.2 requesting him for grant of funds of Rs.100,574,765/ - for diet of patients to clear the liabilities for the financial year 2021 -22, the Plaintiff also approached Defendant No.2 for recovery of funds but he also did not give
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-3- proper respons e. Plaintiff tried his best to recover his amount of Rs.100,574,765/- and lastly he got issued legal notice to Defendants No.1 & 2 through his counsel but of no avail. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed above noted suit in which he sought following prayers: a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to decree the suit of Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.100,574,765/ - as amount of Diet material to the patients of 'Hospitals' on account of mutual contract/work order and extending of contract order. b) To direct the Defendants to pay such amount along with 10% interest till realization of amount. c) Award costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. d) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper, be granted to the Plaintiff. 3. Upon service, Defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein he denied all assertions of the Plaintiff and stated that on the request of Plaintiff the then Medical Superintendent/Chairman, Procurement Committee of Chanka Medical College issued such letter in order to continue diet to the hospitals, but the real fact is that without passing the NIT, the Defendant No.1 is not bound to pay the alleged huge amount to the Plaintiff. It was further averred that as per Section 5 of Contract Act, 1872, the invitation of bid is mere invitation of proposal and it is not binding on other party to come into the shape of agreement. It was further stated that conduct of the Plaintiff shows that he is a greedy person and he wants to obtain a huge amount from the Government in the shape of diet and want s to cause an irreparable loss to the Government exchequer. It was further stated that as per SPPRA Rules, 2010 (Amended in 2017), the answering Defendant reserve all the rights to grant or cancel all or any tender at any time even without any reason. Moreover, supply of food by the Plaintiff was his sweet will and answering Defendant is not bound to pay as there was no fresh NIT. The answering Defendants by virtue of their portfolio carry huge responsibility to impart their duty and same was performed with profound care. Moreover , the answering Defendants had submitted their comments before the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Larkano in CP No.D -354 of 2022 which was disposed of. The Defendants were ready and willing to comply with order/observations of H igh Court, Circuit Court Larkano and accordingly the Plaintiff was advised to appear before the Redressal Committee along with relevant record and his grievance would be resolved within the ambit of law of land. However, t he Plaintiff did not appear before the answering
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-4- Defendants or before the Redressal Committee in order to get his grievance resolved and he preferred to utilize different source in order to exert pressure upon the answering Defendant for illegally and unlawfully obtaining said unjust amount. The office of answering Defendants never received such notice. T he answering Defendant is bestowed with great responsibility in order to take care of the hospitals and other office work, hence he mostly remains engaged in office w ork as well as welfare work of deser ving patients admitted in Government Hospitals. The Plaintiff wants to obtain the excess huge amount from the answering Defendants by using foul tactics and it apparently seems impossible that any person dare to spend su ch huge amount in Billions from his own pocket in short time of 9 months without fulfilment any codal formalities. It was lastly prayed in the written statement that the suit may be dismissed with special costs. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues and proceeded to record evidence. After hearing the arguments of counsels for the parties, trial court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2024. The Plaintiff / Respondent assailed the said judgment by preferring Civil Appeal No.38/2024 before VIth Additional District Judge, Larkano. The Appellate Court after hearing the advocates for the parties vide judgment dated 03.8.2024 allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court with direction to rehear the arguments of both the parties and pass fresh judgment in accordance with law. 5. After remand, the trial Court re -numbered the case as F.C. Suit No.122/2024 and assigned the same to IInd Senior Civili Judge, Larkano for deciding the matter afresh. After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 07.11.2024. 6. The Plaintiff / Respondent again challenged the said judgme nt by preferring Civil Appeal No.133/2024 before II -Additional District Judge, Larkano. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29 th January, 2025. The Appellate Court directed t he Defendants/Applicants to make payment of the decretal amount to the
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-5- Plaintiff /Respondent within a period of two months. It was further ordered that in case of failure to make payment, the Plaintiff would be entitled to profit s/returns on the decreed amount at the rate of six (6) percent per annum but the same shall not be compounded. 7. The applicants/Defendants have impugned the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate C ourt by means of instant Civil Revision Application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on the record. 9. Learned Additional A.G. assisted by learned Assistant A.G. appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that the suit filed by the Respondent was rightly dismissed by the trial Court twice; however, the appellate Court erred while firstly remanding the case for hearing fresh arguments, and then in the second round, decreeing the suit without proper appreciation and appraisal of the evidence as wel l as the relevant law and the rules; even the appellate Court did not discuss the issues settled down by the trial Court. They further went on to say that no documentary evidence was adduced by the Respondent/Plaintiff to substantiate his claim to the exte nt of award/execution of contract, which by virtue of Section 5 of the Contract Act was void. They further submitted that no NIT was issued or approved, even the amount so claimed was huge one, therefore, it was mandatory to advertise the contract/NIT thro ugh three large and widely circulated newspapers or electronic media and without completion of said codal formalities, the claim of Respondent, if it is presumed to be true even then cannot be awarded or approved. They also referred Rule 17 of SPPRA Rules, 2010. They, therefore, submitted that learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent and the appellate Court has committed gross illegality, which apparently warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction; hence, pray ed for grant of instant Revision Application and setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Zamir Ali Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, opposed the revision a pplication and by referring
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-6- para-4 of the plaint, available at page-95 of the Court file , submitted that the contract awarded to the Respondent for the year 2020-21 vide Ex.22-B ended on 30.06.2021 and the amount so invested by him was paid to him. He next submitted that no fresh contract was issued; however, by virtue of Ex.22/C the Respondent/Plaintiff was directed to continue the supply for the year 2021 -22; however, out of said contract the Respondent/Plaintiff paid the amount from July to September, 20 21 and later from October, 2021 to June, 2022 no payment was made and that before filing the civil suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff had also maintained a petition being C.P. No.D-354/2022 before this Court (page-189), which upon the statement of the Applicants/Defendants was disposed of by way of order dated 07.6.2022, which is available at page-221 of the Court file, whereby the Applicants/Defendants had admitted claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff. He further argued in rebuttal that Section 5 of the Contract Act has got no relevancy with this case, as by virtue of Rule 25 of the SPPRA Rules, if the payment is denied, the concerned department is under obligation to return the things or benefits they earned, which by way of Rule 16(b) of SPPRA Rules provides alt ernate method of the payment. He while going through the evidence submitted that the applicants/ Defendants had issued many letters to the department for payment, which subsequently were not responded to by the department; hence the Respondent/Plaintiff was constrained to maintain the suit, which ultimately was decreed by the appellate Court. Hence, contract so awarded to the Respondent was not void and in case it may be presumed to be void, he urged that by virtue of Section 65 of the Contract Act, 1872 the Applicants/Defendants are under obligation to return the benefits extended to them by the answering Respondent/Plaintiff. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the cases reported as 2014 CLD 337, 2021 SCMR 1805, 2008 CLC 1043, 2007 Appell ate Cases (AC) 280 and 2021 CLC 1296. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, he placed reliance upon the case reported as 2011 SCMR 873 and in respect of public procurement upon the case reported as 2010 CLC 1253. Lastly, he submitted that the trial Court had erred while dismissing his suit, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which may warrant interference by this Court; hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Revision Application.
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-7- 11. In order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion it would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder the relevant rules of the SPPRA, 2010: 16. ALTERNATE METHODS OF PROCUREMENTS .- (1) A procuring agency may utilize following alternative m ethods of procurement of goods, services and works, namely – (a) Request for Quotations.- (i) request for quotation is the method based on comparing price quotations obtained from at least three suppliers, contractors, and service providers, in the case o f services other than consulting services, to assure competitive prices; (ii) a procuring agency shall engage in this method of procurement only if the following conditions exist; (A) the cost of object of procurement is below the prescribed limit of one h undred thousand rupees and above the financial limit prescribed for petty purchase, as provided in clause (d); (B) the object of procurement has standard specifications; (C) the object of the procurement is purchased from the supplier offering the lowest price; (D) requests for quotations shall indicate the description and quantity of the goods or specifications of works, as well as desired delivery, or completion time and place. Quotations may be submitted by letter, facsimile or by electronic means; (E) the evaluation of quotations shall follow the same principles as applicable to open competitive bidding.
(b) Direct Contracting.- This method means procurement from a single source without competition and shall only be applicable under any of the following conditions – (i) standardization of equipment or spare parts, to be compatible with the existing equipment: Provided that the competent authority certifies in writing the compatibility of the equipment or spare part(s) to be procured; (ii) the required it em(s) is of proprietary nature and obtainable only from one source: Provided that the Head of the Department certifies in writing the proprietary nature of the item(s) to be procured; (iii) the contractor responsible for a process design requires the purchase of critical items from a particular supplier as a condition of a performance guarantee; (iv) where civil works are to be contracted and are a natural extension of an earlier or on -going job and it can be ascertained that the engagement of the same cont ractor will be more economical and will ensure compatibility of results in terms of quality of work subject to clause (e) below;
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-8- (v) where a change of supplier would oblige the procuring agency to acquire material having different technical specifications or characteristics and would result in incompatibility or disproportionate technical difficulties in operation and maintenance: Provided that the competent authority certifies in writing the compatibility of the materials to be procured; (vi) when the pri ce of goods and works and service related thereto, is fixed by Government or any other authority, agency or body duly authorized by the Government, on its behalf; (vii) for purchase of locally manufactured motor vehicle from local manufacturers or their a uthorized agents at manufacturer‟s price; (viii) in cases of emergency: Provided that the Head of the Department or any other officer not below BS -20 to whom such powers have been delegated by the Head of the Department, declares that a situation of emerg ency has arisen and reasons for making such a declaration shall be recorded in writing. (C). ---- xxx (D). ---- (E). ----- 14. Whereas, the requirement for and advertisement procedure is provided under Rule 17 which is as under, 17. M ETHODS OF NOTIFICATION AND ADVERTISEMENT.- (1) Procurements over one hundred thousand rupees and up to one million rupees shall be advertised by timely notifications on the Authority‟s website and may in print media in the manner and format prescribed in these rules. [(1A) All procurement opportunities over one million rupees shall be advertised on the Authority‟s website as well as in the newspapers as prescribed.] (2) The advertisement in the newspapers shall appear in at least three widely circulated le ading dailies of English, Urdu and Sindhi languages. (3) The notice inviting tender shall contain the following information – (a) name, postal address, telephone number(s), fax number, e-mail address (if available) of the procuring agency; (b) purpose and scope of the project; (c) schedule of availability of bidding documents, submission and opening of bids, mentioning place from where bidding documents would be issued, submitted and would be opened; (d) amount and manner of payment of tender fee and bid se curity; (e) any other information that the procuring agency may deem appropriate to disseminate at this stage;
(4) In cases, the procuring agency has its own website; it shall also post all advertisements concerning procurement on that website as well.
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-9- (5) A procuring agency utilizing electronic media shall ensure that the information posted on the website contains all the information mentioned in sub-rule (3) above. (6) In the case of international competitive bidding, the notice shall be advertised in tw o widely circulated local English language newspapers in accordance with sub -rules (1) (3) (4) and (5) above, and shall also be posted in English language on an internationally known website dedicated for the particular goods, works or services, or any wid ely circulated English language international newspaper. [18. RESPONSE TIME. - The procuring agency shall give due consideration to the scope, magnitude and nature of procurement, while deciding the response time, which shall not be less than fifteen days in case of National Competitive Bidding and forty five days in case of International Competitive Bidding: Provided that the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) shall be hoisted on Authority‟s website in case of Procurements up to rupees one million and published in newspapers in case of over rupees one million on or before the date of issuance of bidding documents.] 19. EXCEPTIONS. - Under following circumstances deviation from the requirements under Rules 17 and 18 is permissible – (1) In cases of emergency , minimum time periods, specified in Rule 18 may be reduced subject to the prior approval with reasons to be recorded by the Head of Department or an officer not below BS-20 who has been delegated such powers. (2) In cases of procurement related to national sec urity, the requirement of advertisements and publication under Rule 17 may be waived, provided the Head of Department declares beforehand that such a publication could jeopardize national security objectives. (3) The requirement of advertisement and public ation under Rule 17 may be waived in a case of procurement, if it relates to disclosure of information, which is proprietary in nature or falls within the definition of intellectual property, which is available from a single source provided that, the appro val of the Head of Department has been sought beforehand.
12. Rule 17 (1A) of the SPPRA, rules 2010 provides that a ll procurement opportunities over one million rupees shall be advertised on the Authority‟s website as well as in the newspapers as prescribed. Sub- rule (2) provides that t he advertisement in the newspapers shall appear in at least three widely circulated leading dailies of English, Urdu and Sindhi languages. From the wording of the abovesaid provision of law, it seems that the same are mandatory requirements in respect of all procurement opportunities over one million rupees. In this view of the matter unless NIT process is completed after fulfilment of aforesaid requirements, the contract of the goods cannot be termed to be in accordance wit h the law and relevant rules. However, Clause (b) to Rule 16 provide s Direct
Civil Revision No. S-33/2025
-10- Contracting from same source / contractor. However, sub -clause (iv) to Clause 16(b) provided that such direct contracting can be done only where civil works are to be contracted and are a natural extension of an earlier or ongoing job and it can be ascertained that the engagement of the same contractor will be more economical and will ensure compatibility of results in terms of quality of work subject to Clause (e). 13. Clause (e) to Rule 16 (1) defines “ Repeat Orders ” as procurement of additional quantities of the item(s) from the original contractor or supplier, where, after the times originally envisaged for the project or scheme have been procured through open competitive biddi ng, and such additional quantities of the same item(s) of goods or works are needed to meet the requirement of the project or scheme . Proviso to Clause (e) makes it subject to the condition that the cost of additional quantities of item(s) shall not exceed 15% of the original contract amount; and that the original supplier and contractor are willing to supply goods or carry out additional work on the same prices as agreed in the original contract; and that in case of goods, it shall be permissible only with in the same financial year, and in case of works, during the currency of the project(s) or scheme(s). 14. Clause (viii) to Rule 16(1)(b), which relates to emergency situation, is very much relevant and is reproduced hereunder: (viii) in cases of emergency: Provided that the Head of the Department or any other officer not below BS-20 to whom such powers have been delegated by the Head of the Department, declares that a situation of emergency has arisen and reasons for making such a declaration shall be recorded in writing. 15. Rule 19 is also very important , which provides exceptions and exemptions to fulfill conditions as stipulated in…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.