Lahore civil court rejects PKR 6,000 label-order claim over unproven discount deadline

The civil court in Lahore rejected Imran Saeed’s claim for PKR 6,000 against Nadia Farooq over a business label order, finding that he had not proved the discount he offered depended on payment that same evening. Judgment was entered for Nadia, with no additional payment ordered and no other monetary relief awarded.

The dispute concerned the difference between a request for quick payment and an agreed deadline. Imran said Nadia could settle the remaining account for PKR 24,000 only if she paid that evening; she transferred that sum two days later and disputed that the discount carried a clear time limit.

The central exhibit was Nadia’s cropped screenshot of a WhatsApp message attributed to Imran at 6:12 p.m. on 8 June 2026. It offered to close the label account for PKR 24,000 without stating a deadline. The image ended immediately below the offer.

That limitation mattered in both directions. The screenshot supported the existence of the reduced-payment offer, but could not establish that no later message added a deadline. Equally, the missing portion could not prove that such a condition had been communicated and accepted.

Imran’s account of needing to pay his paper supplier explained his urgency, but did not establish the terms Nadia had accepted. His submissions were neither the complete message record nor admitted witness testimony. Although he said he wished to submit the full conversation, none appeared in the record.

The court explained that a rule requiring conditions to be fulfilled could assist Imran only after he proved the condition was part of the agreement. Because he sought the additional payment, the unresolved evidence counted against his claim. The court did not find that no deadline had ever been discussed; it found that the alleged condition was not proved.

Imran argued that the original PKR 40,000 price remained binding unless Nadia met the terms of the discount. He said he requested payment that evening to clear supplier payments, and Nadia replied that she would arrange the transfer. In his account, payment two days later did not qualify for the reduction.

Nadia argued that an explanation of urgency was not the same as a clear condition. She relied on the screenshot’s deadline-free wording while acknowledging that its crop left any follow-up unknown. Her position was that Imran had not established why another PKR 6,000 was payable.

The parties’ accounts supported an agreed price of PKR 40,000 for the supplied labels. Nadia paid PKR 10,000 upfront on 3 June 2026, and Imran delivered the order. Following the 8 June exchange, Nadia transferred PKR 24,000 on 10 June.

The decision resolves only the disputed PKR 6,000 claim. It leaves the content of any missing follow-up unresolved and makes no broader finding about obligations beyond that amount.