1999 PLP 844 (CLC)

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,000 in respect of Traveller Cheques guaranteed by Visa International, San Francisco California, U&A., by way of damages for loss of business and permanent injunction against Visa International, B.C.C.I. through its liquidators, State Bank of Pakistan, various private Banks established in Pakistan, a number of Brokerage Houses, Investment Banking Companies and a Discount House. In respect of defendants Nos.l, 5, 12, 14, 22, 24,‑ 27, 32, 33 and 35 there are separate applications for striking out such defendants from the array of parties for the main reason that B.C.C.I. is being wound up by an order of Grand Court of Cayman Islands and its assets are now being managed by the Liquidators and that all other defendants have no privity of contract with the plaintiff and in fact no cause of action has been shown to exist against such defendants.

2. Perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff got issued certain Travellers Cheques from B.C.C.I., which were either not cashed or dishonoured. The value of such cheques has been shown in the plaint to be U.S. $ 20,000, whereas the plaintiff claims loss of business to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 and general damages on account of mental tension and loss of health in the sum of Rs.28,63,

406. He has assessed the amount of interest on the principal amount of cheques at Rs.16,36,594 making grand total of Rs.50,00,000.

3. From the record it appears that after the submission of the plaint, Mr. M.R. Zia Rana learned counsel for plaintiff has hardly cared to appear before the Court and take part in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respective defendants state at the Bar that even he refused to accept copies of the applications under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. moved by them.

4. Upon hearing [earned counsel for the parties I am inclined to hold that no proceedings can take place against B.C.C.I. (Overseas) Limited for the reason that the company has gone into liquidation after being ordered to be wound up by a competent Court of law vide its order, dated 14‑1‑1992, without the permission of such Court. As to the lack of jurisdiction by reason of such company being situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the question is, left open for consideration at some appropriate occasion. Suffice to say, the present suit cannot proceed against this defendant for the aforesaid reason and the .remedy of the plaintiff, if any, lay before the Official Liquidators.

5. Taking up the case of remaining defendants most of whom are Banking Companies and some of them Brokerage Houses with which the plaintiff has hardly any privity of contract. In fact no cause of action is alleged against such companies and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek a relief of Permanent $ Injunction of general nature against those companies in this suit which on the fact of it is, vague, misconceived, not warranted and barred by law.

6. While granting these applications in terms of Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. I further order that the suit itself would not be maintainable against rest of the defendants for identical reasons and it will be criminal wastage of time and energy to proceed with the suit in a situation when the plaintiff and his C counsel have chosen to remain absent on most of the hearings without any justification. For the foregoing reasons, suit is dismissed with special costs of Rs.5,000 to each of the defendants who have put in appearance before this Court. All pending C.M.As. also stand disposed of.

7. Before parting with this order I would like to emphasise upon the office to scrutinise the contents of the plaint in each case judiciously and not to admit every plaint without proper scrutiny as to the maintainability thereof, and availability of a case of action against the defendants arrayed as parties to suit as wrongful admissions of suits result in criminal wastage of time which cannot be measured in terms of coins. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑346/K Suit dismissed