1986 PLP 76 (MLD)

(d) After taking accounts, a preliminary decree be passed and decree the suit finally with special costs and interest be awarded at 15% from the date of the suit upto the date of the decree an realization.

2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants in which certain preliminary objections were also taken. Issues were settled by this Court on 18‑10‑1980 and the following first fours were tried as preliminary issues:‑

(1) Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (2) Whether the suit is barred by section 214 of the Succession Act, 1925? (3) Whether the suit is hit by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and whether the reliefs claimed in the suit would defeat the provisions contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947? (4) Whether the defendant's obligation, if any, is to pay only at the branch where the account is opened and the amount is deposited? Both the learned counsel had agreed that no evidence was required to be led for deciding these four preliminary issues. I have heard ‑at length the arguments of Mr. Mamnoon Hasan, learned counsel for the defendants and Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

3. I will take up issue No.2 first. It was argued by Mr. Mamnoon Hasan, learned counsel for the defendant‑Bank, that the present suit is barred by section 214 of the Succession Act. 1925. According to the learned counsel for the defendant‑Bank, before filing the present suit, the plaintiffs or anyone or more of them should have obtained Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate. Section 214 of the Succession Act. 1925 provides that no Court shall pass a decree against the debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person except on the production by the person who claiming of a probate or letters of administration or a certificate granted under the Administrator General s Act, 1913 or a Succession Certificate. This is a suit for accounts and the legal representatives of a deceased are not debarred from filing such a suit without obtaining letters of administration or a succession certificate. Reference in this regard may be made to 32 Cal.

418. Issue No.2 is decided in the negative.

4. I will take up issue No.3 next. According to Mr. Mamnoon Hasan, this suit is barred by the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1947 and in respect of his contention learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the case of Benimedhab Pal v. Sachinnandan Roy P L D 1958 Dacca

494. According to the learned counsel, filing of such suit violates section 5 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1947. Learned counsel for the defendant has taken me through section 5 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1947 and I find that no provision of this section puts any embargo on filing a suit of the type that has been filed by the plaintiffs. The decision in P L D 1958 Dacca 494 is also not applicable. The plaintiffs do not want any payment to be made to them in foreign exchange. What they require by the present suit is that the defendants should render accounts and if any amount is found due from the defendant‑Bank, a decree be passed in Pakistani rupees for an amount equivalent to the amount of Dirhams found to be due from the defendant‑Bank to the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 is also decided in negative. The present suit is not barred by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the reliefs claimed in the present suit would not defeat the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

5. I will take up issues Nos. 1 and 4 together. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the present suit has been filed in respect of the accounts maintained by deceased Gulzar Khan in the Ajman Branch of the defendant‑Bank and no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff at Karachi. According to the learned counsel, this Court has accordingly no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It was further pointed out by Mr. Mamnoon Hasan Advocate that the plaintiffs themselves had moved the Ajman Court and after obtaining the requisite certificate from that Court withdraw all the amount which was lying in credit in the two accounts maintained by the deceased Gulzar Khan. The main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant was that for purposes of accounts, a branch of a bank is to be treated as a separate and distinct person or entity. According to the learned counsel, although the Ajman Branch of the defendant‑Bank was and still is a branch of United Bank Limited, for purposes of accounts, the Ajman Branch is to be treated in law as a separate person and as no cause of action has accrued in Karachi, the accounts being maintained at Ajman by the deceased who was also residing there, a suit could only be filed at Ajman and the Courts in Karachi have no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. Learned counsel also pointed out the complications that would arise and the extreme inconvenience that would be caused if in such a situation a suit is allowed to be filed at the place where the Head Office of the bank is situated. It was submitted that all the documents and papers and evidence was available at Ajmar and if the suit is allowed to proceed in 'the Court here, the documents and witnesses will have to be called from U.A.E. In support of the contention that in such a situation, a branch of a bank is to be treated as a legal person separate from the Head Office of the bank, Mr. Mamnoon Hasan referred to the following authorities:‑

(i) P.I.A. v. National Bank of Pakistan P L D 1982 Kar. 463. (ii) Clare & Co. v. Dresdneer Bank (1914) All E R 817. (iii) Arab Bank Ltd. v. Barclaye Bank (1954) 2 All E R. 226. (iv) Fouad Bishara Jabbar v. State of Israel (1954) 1 All E R 145. (v) Allahabad Bank v. Gulli Lal A I R 1940 Al1.243. (vi) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Harnam Sing A I R 1950 S C 590. (vii) Bahmania Trading Company v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. PLD 1960 S C 202. (viii) Agencia C.I. v. Custodian B.N.U A I R 1970 Goa 11. (ix). I. A . Industries v. Punjab National Bank A I R 1970 All. 108.

6. On the other hand Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank is located in Karachi, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It was argued that in case the account‑holder, that is, deceased Gulzar Khan had filed a suit against the defendant‑Bank, a plea could have been raised that such a suit be filed at Ajman but the present suit has not been filed by the account‑holder but this suit has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased account‑holder and as such the present suit is maintainable at Karachi, where the Head office of the defendant‑Bank is located. The attention of the Court was also drawn by Mr. Shaikh Haider to the letters, dated 16‑5‑1977 (Annexure III to the plaint) and letter, dated 13‑5‑1979 (Annexure V to the Plaint) of the defendant's Head Office addressed to the plaintiff No.

1. As observed earlier, under cover of letter, dated 16‑5‑1977, the statements of accounts of the two accounts maintained by the deceased in the Ajman Branch of the defendant‑Bank were forwarded to plaintiff No.1. Letter dated 16‑5‑1977 of the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank addressed to he plaintiff No. l is reproduced here;

‑ Further to our letter No. ID/WA/185, dated 4th February, 1977, we forward herewith statement of account of abovementioned two accounts covering the entire period during which they remain operative at our Ajman Branch. We also enclose a statement of account pertaining to your C.D. Account No.391 opened by you in your name on 16th December, 1976 at our Ajman Branch to obtain repayment of the outstanding balances of your deceased son's account. We shall be glad if you will kindly check up these statements and let us know if you have any grievance in the matter. Assuring you of our full co‑operation. We remain."

7. On the admitted facts of this case, in my view, it is not necessary to decide whether for purpose of filing a suit in respect of an account maintained by the customer in a branch of a bank such branch is to be treated as a separate legal person distinct from the head office of the bank or not. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs through plaintiff No.1 had asked the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank to submit the statements of accounts of the concerned two accounts of the deceased maintained at the Ajman Branch of the defendant‑bank covering the entire period during which such accounts remained operative and under cover of their letter, dated 16‑5‑1977, Head Office of the defendant bank furnished the statement of accounts. It was further stated in the letter, dated 16‑5‑1977 that the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank would be glad if the plaintiffs check up these statements and accounts and let the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank know if they have any grievance in the matter. No stand was taken by the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank that were not in a position to supply the statements of account as these accounts related to the Ajman Branch of the defendant Bank or that the Ajman Branch was a different and separate legal person. On the demands being made by the plaintiffs upon the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank coupled with the entertainment by the defendants Head Office at Karachi of the request of the plaintiffs to supply the statements of accounts of the deceased and by asking the plaintiffs to check these statements of accounts and to let the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank know whether the plaintiffs have any grievance in the matter, cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs against the defendant at Karachi According to the plaintiffs, the statement of account furnished by the Head Office of the defendant‑Bank do not give a correct and true picture of the accounts of the deceased and as such they had to file the present suit for accounts. No doubt a great inconvenience would be caused to the defendant‑Bank on account of the suit proceedings at Karachi but in this case .as the cause of action has accrued at Karachi, the present suit is maintainable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is accordingly decided that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and if any amount is found to be due, a decree can be passed against the defendant‑Bank in the present suit. Issues Nos. 1 and 4 are decided accordingly. The case may now be fixed for recording evidence. H . B . T . Preliminary issues determined.