1989SCMR1435 (PLP)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑11‑1986.

2. The respondent firm entered into contract with the petitioner on 27‑9‑1967 for the supply of 54,000 yards of dark blue serge at Rs.23.74 per yard. According to the agreement the respondent delivered an instalment of 16,520 yards of the cloth to the petitioner on 10‑5‑1968. This cloth was inspected by the inspecting officer, District Controller of Purchase (Inspection), on 24/25‑5‑1968, its laboratory tests were carried out by the Chief Commercial Meteorological Officer on 1‑6‑1968 and the result thereof was to the effect that the supply was in accordance with the specification. The Chief Controller of Purchase, the Deputy Chief Controller (Technical) on examining the goods on 22‑6‑1968 found the goods to be in accordance with the terms of the contract. In token of the above tests a receipt note No.L‑1408, dated 24‑6‑1968 was issued to the respondent with the certificate that the quantity received in accordance with the order noted above was in good condition and was also in accordance with the approved sample/specification/drawings. The respondent thus became entitled to the price of the goods to the extent of Rs.3,92,184.80. This was demanded from the petitioner through a registered notice but instead of payment the petitioner rejected the goods delivered as per memorandum, dated 22‑7‑1968. This rejection compelled the respondent to file a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,92,184.80 plus an amount of Rs.50,000 as loss suffered by it and interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the 1st of July 1968. The suit was contested and the pleadings of the parties resulted in the framing of a number of issues. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence produced by the parties decreed the suit of the respondent 6de judgment, dated 26‑3‑1980 for the recovery of a sum of R0,WjS4.80 with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum on the entire decretal amount with effect from 1st July 19f~i till full and final payment to tic respondent. The petitioner was also burdened with costs of the suit. The petitioner's appeal in the High Court on merits failed as per judgment, dated 24‑11‑1986, the decree for the recovery of Rs.3,92,184.80 was maintained but the amount of interest was reduced to Rs.3,92,184.80. The total amount thus allowed to the respondent was Rs.7,84,369.60. The petitioner has now filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and we have not been able to find any defect m the impugned judgments in that admittedly the goods in dispute were supplied to the petitioner and the same were accepted after laboratory tests in accordance with the procedure laid down for the contract, which was followed by a receipt note Exh‑ P.l issued in favour of the respondent by the District Controller/Purchase (Inspection), P.W.R. klughalnura. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner here before us that the suit was incompetent in A view of the arbitration clause in the contract agreement would not prevail in that this question was not taken or agitated before the Courts below. The same, therefore, cannot be allowed to be raised here at the petition stag.

4. Thus, finding no force in the petition, the same is dismissed. A.A./P‑87/S Petition dismissed.