1999CLC1915 (PLP)

(6) . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to alleged damages of Rs.500 million / or part against the defendant‑Bank? 7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree for accounts?, (8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to release of mortgages and personal guarantees? (9) What should the decree be?

5. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have examined Nusrat Azeem as Exh.5 whereas the defendant has examined its officer Razing Afaq as Exh.6. When this matter came up for arguments on 15‑5‑1998 the learned counsel for. the defendant produced before me copy of judgment, dated 6‑4‑1998 passed by another learned Judge of this Court in Judicial Miscellaneous Application No .210 of 1996 in proceedings preferred by the defendant against the plaintiffs under section 39 of the I.D.B.P. Ordinance. The copy of the judgment, dated 6th April, 1998, by consent of both the learned counsel, was taken on record as an admitted document. It was found that as a result of the above referred judgment, most of the issues, settled earlier through consent, had to be deleted since any discussion or finding thereon would have amounted to sitting in review or in appeal over the said judgment. The issues were accordingly resettled as follows:‑‑ (1) Whether there was any delay in processing of documentation and/or disbursement of Finance etc., and if any, was it on the part of the defendant‑Bank? . (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to alleged damages of Rs.500 million or part against the defendant‑Bank? (3) ' What should the decree be? Having found that the evidence in relation to the abovestated issues had already been recorded, the matter was proceeded without fresh/further evidence.

6. I have heard both the learned counsel and with their assistance have gone through the record My findings on the above issues are as follows:‑‑ Issue No. l ; 7. . The plaintiffs' counsel in support of this issue, has referred to paragraph 11 of the plaint and evidence of the plaintiffs' witness Nusrat Azeem, relevant portion whereof is as follows:‑‑ "The project had to commence operation within 18 months from the establishment of letter of credit which was established by us through the defendant as per our Agreement. The defendant thereafter resorted to delaying attitude and did not convey decision in time nor disbursed the loan amount as per the agreed schedule. The plaintiff had pointed out and protested against the delays caused by the defendant but the same remained unresponded. The delay on the part of the defendant, referred by me above was caused by delaying bridge finance, processing tender, making payments to supplier resulting in delayed supply, working capital, processing the rescheduling and restructuring of the loan which was eventually done but after our name had been included in the defaulters' List.

8. In reply , the learned counsel for .the defendant has referred to the replies contained in written statement and the deposition of its witness Razine Afaq who has stated in his examination‑in‑chief that there was no delay in documentation on the part of the defendant. Mr. Azizur Rehman has pointed out that the defendant's witness was not put any question in cross‑examination about the alleged delay in documentation. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, whatever delay had been caused was attributable to the plaintiffs themselves and had occurred before sanction of the various finances and loan. The learned counsel has asserted that the plaintiffs have failed to specify the documents which were delayed at the defendant's end. As regards demands made by the plaintiffs from time to time for grant of finance or additional finances and the time consumed in processing such demands, it is urged by the learned counsel that the defendant cannot be held liable in such behalf. It was the prerogative of the defendant to examine the requests for grant of additional finances and the plaintiffs cannot claim the right to avail finances with initial processing. Having considered the pleadings and the evidence which has come on record. I find that bulk of the documents filed as evidence show that the defendant had consumed time in processing various requests made by the plaintiffs for grant of finances. However, once the finances/loan was sanctioned, the disbursement had taken place without any substantial delay. The contention of Mr. Azizur Rehman in this behalf appears to be valid and justified. Financing Institution cannot be pressed to sanction grant of finance without assessing the extent of requirement and the credibility of the applicant besides examining host of other factors. The plaintiffs have failed to show if the defendant had unauthorisedly or unreasonably delayed disbursement of the amount of finance/loan after sanction thereof. In the circumstances, my finding on issue No. i is in the negative and no material has been placed on record to, establish' that the defendant was responsible for delay in processing of documentation. Issue No.2 The plaintiff's case in relation to this issue is contained in paragraphs 24 to 29 of the plaint. Although the various heads and the causes for the loss allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs have been stated in the plaint, the plaintiffs, apparently applying the rule of thumb, have claimed a sutra of Rs.500 million by way of damages. In the deposition of the solitary witness of the plaintiffs, the entire evidence put forward is in the following words:‑‑ "I claim damages for losses suffered by us." The plaintiffs, in the first place, have not given details of the losses nor have quantified the amount thereof. The claim in the plaint is couched in general terms. It is a settled proposition of law that in order to succeed iii claim for damages, details of the losses suffered by a party, must be established with clarity and sufficient details. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to offer any details of the losses. Moreover, nothing has been shown to burden the defendant for liahility to make good the losses allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari has not been able' to cite any law to contend otherwise. Indeed. the learned counsel for the defendant has referred to section 73 of the Contract Act and has urged that the plaintiffs' claim for damages is too remote and cannot be granted In the circumstances, my finding on this issue is, also in the negative.

10. In view of my findings on the two issues, as above, the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑248/K Suit dismissed.