1988 PLP 1640 (MLD)

I propose to dispose of the above‑mentioned three suits by a Single Judgment as the plaintiff m all the three suits is same and so also the facts and legal points at issue. By consent it was ordered, that the evidence recorded in Suit No.124 of 1973 he treated as evidence in all the suits‑The plaintiffs in three suits are Karachi Gas Company Limited. They have filed the suits for the recovery of certain amounts from the respective. defendants for alleged tampering with the motor of the plaintiff installed in their respective premises thereby depriving the plaintiff of the dues for the consumption of the gas by the defendants. In Suit No.123 of 1973, the plaintiffs claim Rs.1,13,022 from defendant M/s.Tajuddin Silk Mills, for the theft of their gas by tampering with the meter during the period from March, 1971 to November, 1972. In Suit No.124 of 1973, the plaintiffs claim Rs.2,34,029.25 from M/s.Karim Silk Mills Ltd. for theft of their Gas by tampering with the meters during the period from March, 1971 to November, 1972. In Suit No.125 of 1973, the plaintiffs claim Rs.2,68,700.25 from M/s.H.M.Silk Mills for theft of their gas during the period from March, 1971 to November, 1972 by tampering with the meter. The plaintiffs also claim interest at 9% from the date of institution of suits till the realization of the decree on the said amount. The defendants in all the three suits have denied tampering with the meter or theft of the gas. They are admittedly consumers of the gas, supplied by the plaintiffs but state, that they have been paying dues in accordance with the meter reading and that no amount is due from them. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court has settled the following issues in three suits. Following consent issues were framed, which are common in all the three suits except issue No.2. The common issues are as under:‑ (1) Whether the suit is maintainable? (2) Whether the gas meter installed on the defendants premises was tampered with and its meter reading indices reversed from time to time in 1971 and 1972 thereby indicating gas consumption considerably less than the volume of gas actually consumed? (4) Whether the gas meter was tampered with and its meter readings/indices reversed by the defendants and/or under the instructions of defendants and or to the knowledge of the defendants? If so, what is the effect? (5) Whether the defendants consumed such larger quantity of gas during 1971 and 1972 than that indicated by the meter without making payment for the value of gas actually consumed. If so, what is the effect? (6) Whether the defendant paid the value of the gas consumed as per bills sent by the plaintiff for the period in question and if so whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any further payment? (7) Whether the defendant consumed alleged quantity of gas during the period as alleged in the plaint without making any payment for the value of the same? (8) Whether the plaintiff intimated the defendant about the investigation as alleged in the plaint and if not what is the effect? (9) Whether the defendants are liable to make payment to the plaintiff for consumption of gas during the period in question on the basis of average consumption worked out to terms of consumption recorded by the meter during the year 1969 and 1970? (10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive and or recover from the defendant alleged value of gas in respect of the period in question? (11) Whether the plaintiff wrongfully, illegally and unjustifiably issued the bill for December, 1972, and if so what is the effect? (12) Whether the suit is false and vexatious and if so whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? (13) To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to? (14) What should the decree be? Issue No.2 in each case reads as under:‑ Suit No.123 of 1973. Whether the gas consumption by the defendant as indicated by the meter revealed that the consumption had apparently fallen to 17834 MCFT in 1971 and 3056 MCF in 1972? Suit No.124 of 1973. Whether the gas consumption by the defendant as indicated by the meter, revealed, that the consumption had apparently fallen to 20819 MCF in 1971 and 7153 MCF in 1972? Suit No.125 of 1973. Whether the gas consumption by the defendant as indicated by the meter revealed that the consumption had apparently fallen to 27423 MCF in 1971 and 6701 MCF in 1972? Before giving my findings on these issues, I will first deal with the evidence produced by the parties in each case separately. Plaintiff has examined P.W. Javed Hussain and Anwar Hussain, and defendant in Suit No.124 of 1973, has examined one witness Ali Zubairi, whereas, no witness has been examined by the defendants in Suits Nos.123 and 125. 1 will first deal with the evidence in Suit No.124 of 1973. Suit No.124 of 1973. Karim Silk Mills. The plaintiffs have examined Mr.Javed Hussain, General Manager, Technical of the Karachi Gas Co. Limited, who is the plaintiff in all the suits. He has produced the original contract of supply of gas between the plaintiffs and defendant, which is dated 17‑5‑1968. He has produced the monthly meter reading sheets for the years 1971‑72, which are Exhs.5/38 to

40. He has also produced a statement showing summary of the gas consumption for the year 1969 to 1972 as Exh.5/42 and ten inspection cards filed by their engineering staff Exh.5/42 to 5/51. He has produced a statement showing difference in the reading of the meter recorded by the meter reading staff and by their engineering staff for the period from November, 1971 to December, 1972 as Exh.5/52. He has produced seven inspection cards Exh.5/53 to 5/59, which bear his signature and which he filed on inspection of the defendant's meter. He also produced seven bills sent by them to the defendant from December, 1972 in June, 1973 as Exh.5/60 to 5/66. He was produced legal notice sent to the defendant as Exh.5/67 and their reply as Exh.5/68. In rebuttal the defendants have examined Mr.Syed Ammen Zubair Exh.7 an employee of the defendants since 1965. He was Labour Officer of the defendants from 1965 to 1973. He states, that from 3‑3‑1971 to November, 1972, there was shortage of production due to general strike and go‑slow by the workers. He further states, that after 1971 they modernised their private generator also. He has produced annual report the deft for the year 1971‑72 and 1973 as Exh.6/1 to 6/3. It is clear from the evidence of the parties, that no body saw the actual commission of theft of the gas by the defendants but the conclusion of the plaintiffs based on two grounds. Firstly, that the average consumption between the parties from March, 1971 to November, 1972, was such less than the average consumption of the gas by the defendant from January, 1969 to March, 1971. Secondly, it was found, that there was difference between the meter reading, recorded by the meter reading staff and engineering staff, which indicated t reversion of the meter by the defendants. The meter was admittedly installed in the premises of the defendants and as such would be within their custody and power. In his cross‑examination. P.W. Jawed Hussain has admitted, that whenever the seal of meter was found broken, it was noted down. He has further stated, that there were certain meters which, had not been sealed but he did not remember whether the meter in the instant case was sealed. He has further stated, that if the seal was found intact that was also mentioned in the inspection report and the meter, which was sealed could not be reversed without breaking the seal. The defendant's witness has also not stated, that the meter was sealed. Under the circumstances, it can safely be assumed, that the meter in question was not sealed. There is no dispute that the average consumption of the gas by the defendant for the period January, 1969 to March, 1971 was much higher, than the' average consumption of the gas by the defendants for the period in question viz, March, 1971 to November, 1972. The plaintiffs allege, that this difference was because of the theft of the gas by the defendant, whereas according to the defendant this difference was due to abnormal working of the suit, during this period due to labour‑strike and go‑slow policy of the labour. The defendant's witness P.W. Ali Ameen Zubairi, has stated, that they had changed the machinery of the mill in 1971 from the gas to electricity. However, he has not been able to say when this change actually took place. It may be pointed, that the defendants had not averred in the written statement, that they had changed the machinery in 1971 from gas to electricity. I also find, that no such stand was taken in the reply given by the defendants to the notice of the plaintiff Ex.5/68. In this view of circumstances, the explanation of this defendant's witness cannot be accepted. The burden of proof, whether. any theft of the plaintiffs gas committed by the defendant is upon the plaintiffs. Admittedly they had filed a criminal case for this alleged theft against the defendant and their employees, but the said case was dismissed by the Court. However, the standard of proof required in a criminal case is different from the standard of proof required in civil suit. The plaintiffs have produced a comparative statement of consumption by the defendants from 1969 to 1972. It is found, that there is abrupt fall in the consumption from April, 1971. Prior to that consumption was near or more than 4,000 MCF upto 7,000 MCF whereas from April, 1971 it is 1130 MCF or less. The lowest consumption appears to be in November, 1972 when it fell 369 MCF, whereas in December, 1972 again it shot upto 6,444 MCF. The competitive figures further show, that ` half yearly consumption uptil June for the year 1969 was 22520 MCF. In 1970 it was 261112 MCF, in 1971 it was 21547 whereas in 1972 it was 4,200 MCF. The annual consumption for these said four years is 48955, 58101, 27423 and 13154 MCFs, respectively. The plaintiffs have also produced the comparative statement of the meter reading recorded by their meter reading section and maintenance department as Exh.5/22. It shows, that on 3‑11‑1971, the maintenance department recorded meter reading as 03408600 whereas on 30‑11‑1971 the meter reading recorded by meter reading staff was 038744000. Thus, even after 27 days of the consumption of the gas, meter reading showed less consumption by 00035400. Similarly the reading of meter recorded by meter reading section on 1 31‑1‑1972, was much lower than the meter reading recorded by the maintenance department on 17‑1‑1972. Similar difference is found in all the meter readings listed in this statement. It may be pointed, that special inspection was conducted by P.W. Jawed Hussain, who has produced the inspection cards as Exh.5/53 to 5/59. In the first inspection card dated 9‑12‑1972, there is no note if the seal was intact or broken. Exh.5/54 is dated 16‑12‑1972. It discloses, that the meter was sealed but it was reversed. Other cards of latter dates, show that the meter seal was intact and there is no mention that meter was reversed. This also indicates the meter of the defendant was sealed only after inspection in December, 1972 whereafter it was under observation and meter recorded increased consumption. The facts, that the meter reading showed the consumption for the months in question much lower than the average consumption for corresponding months in the previous years and the fact, that the meter readings described in Exh.5/52, show, that the meter reading recorded by meter reading staff is much A less than the meter reading recorded by the maintenance staff on earlier date supports the contention of the plaintiff, that gas consumed by the defendant was much more than gas for which the payment was made by them. Suit No.123 of 1973. Tajuddin Silk Mills. The plaintiffs witness Javed Hussain, General Manager, has produced the contract as Exh.5/1, entered in by the parties for supply of gas. He has produced nine meter reading sheets as Exh.5/2 to 5/10 for meter reading from January, 1969 upto June, 1973. He has produced statement showing the monthly consumption for this period as Exh.5/1973. He states, that the engineering staff also recorded the meter reading and on comparing the meter readings with these recorded by meter readers it was found, that the meter had been reversed. He has produced nine cards, showing the meter reading recorded by the maintenance department Exh.5/12 to 5/20. He has, produced comparative statement showing the meter reading recorded by the two sections of the plaintiffs staff as Exh.5/21. He conducted five inspections and has produced his readings during December, 1972 as Exh.5/22 to 5/26. He states, that because of this checking and observation there was no further stealing of the gas in support he has produced statement Exh.5/27 showing gas consumption from January,1973 to June, 1973 which shows normal consumption. He states, that the plaintiff has claimed from the defendants dues on the basis of the average monthly gas consumption of the defendants from January, 1969 to March, 1971 and then deduction from the same the actual billing from March, 1971 to November, 1972. The plaintiff has filed suit for Rs.1,23,022 on this account for short payment. He has also produced copy of the legal notice as Exh.5/22, and reply of the defendant as Exh.5/29. It may be pointed, that the defendants have examined no witness in support of their averments. It is not disputed that the average consumption for the period in question viz. from March, 1971 to November, 1972 is lower than the average consumption in the preceding years or after December, 1972. The comparative figures in Exh.5/11 show that from March, 1971 there has been abrupt and remarkable shortfall in gas consumption. In February, 1971 the consumption was 3892 MCF whereas :n March, it fell to nearly half Viz. 1979 MCF and in December, 1971, it was the lowest viz. 81` MCF only. After May, 1971, the monthly consumption never rose beyond 1,000 MCF and after January, 1972, it did not even reach 500 MCF. This statement further shows, that for years 1969,1970, 1971 and 1972, half, yearly consumption upto June was 18352, 18286, 13864 and 2024 MCF respectively It further shows, the annual consumption for these years was 34992, 13825, 783.1 and 4708 NICF respectively There appears to be mistake in the calculation of the consumption for the year, 1970. On actual calculation it is 1892 MCF. Exh.5/26 is comparative statement "hick shows, that the meter recording recorded by the meter reading staff, is lower than the meter reading recorded by the maintenance department on earlier dates. For example, maintenance department recorded meter reading on 17‑1‑1972 as 093066, but meter reading staff found the meter on 1‑2‑1972 to be 08872000. These two statements read together leave no doubt that there appears to be tampering the meter. The meter reading cards of the maintenance staff Exh.5/ 12 to Vxh.5/20 do not. disclose, if meter was scaled. The inspection cards of the inspection conducted by P.W. Javed Hussain are produced as Exhs.5/22 to 5/25. The first card dated 9‑12‑1972 does not show, whether seal was intact, whereas, the other four cards disclose the meter seal was found intact. P.W. Anwar Hussain admitted in his cross‑ t examination, that some meters were not scaled, but he is not able to say, that meter in question was sealed or not. There is no evidence produced by the defendants to show, that the meter was scaled therefore, in view of the above evidence it can be safely assumed, that the meter was not scaled, and hence could be reversed without apparent detection. Suit No.125 of 1973. H.M.Silk Mills. P.W. Javed Hussain General Manager, has produced the original contract between the parties Exh.5/69 for the supply of the gas, dated 26‑9‑1969. He has produced five meter reading sheets showing the meter reading from November, 1969 to June, 1973 at E4h.5/70 to 5/74. He has produced , consolidated statement Exh.5/75, showing the comparative monthly consumption from January, 1969 to December, 1972. He has produced 11 meter inspection cards as Exh.5/76 to 5/86, which show the meter reading of engineering staff of the plaintiff. He has produced comparative statement as Exh.5/87 showing the readings recorded by meter reading staff as well as maintenance department/engineering staff. He has also produced seven special inspection cards as Exh.5/88 to 5/94. He states, that on 26‑12‑1972 he found, that the meter has been reversed. He has produced seven bills of gas consumption by defendants. Exh.5/95 to 5/101 from December, 1972 to January, 1973 which' showed, that the consumption had become normal. He states that basis of the claim is difference between the average consumption by the defendants before March, 1971 and the actual alleged consumption of the gas for the period in question. It may be pointed, that this defendant has also examined no witness in his defence. In comparative statement of the monthly consumption from 1969 to 1972 Exh.5/72 shows, that there was sharp drop in the consumption from March, 1971. The consumption in January, 1971 is recorded to be 5115 MCF and that in February, 1971, to be 3834 MCF, but in March, is only 1873 MCF. The consumption is recorded lowest in November, 1972 to be 525, whereas in December, 1972 it rose in 4408. The half yearly total consumption till June for the year 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 is recorded to be 32189, 2750, 15287 and 4120 MCF respectively. The yearly consumption for above years is shown to be 61843, 54430, 20855 and 11561 MCF respectively. The comparative statement Exh.5/83 shows, that reading of meter by meter reading staff is lower than the meter dreading recorded by the maintenance staff on earlier dates. For example, on 16‑11‑1971, the maintenance department recorded the meter reading as 61438400, whereas the meter reading staff found meter on 29‑11‑1971 to be 61328600. The special inspection card Exh.13/1 dated 9‑12‑1972 does not show, that the meter was sealed, whereas, the other special inspection cards show, that the meter was sealed except the last card Exh.5/9.1, which is dated 29‑12‑1979, which also does not mention whether meter was sealed or not. In Exh.5/93, which is dated 26‑12‑1972. it is noted that the meter has been, reversed and seal was found broken. I find from the record, that objection was raised by the defendants' advocate to the production of certain documents, which are mainly sheets showing the meter reading recorded by the meter reading staff, and the maintainable staff, and these documents have been admitted subject to the objection. Under section 61 of the Evidence Act which is equivalent to Article 72 of the Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat, the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Under Article 73 of the said Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat primary evidence means document is produced for the inspection of the Court. In the instant case the original documents have been produced, and, therefore, the contents of those documents stand proved by way of primary evidence. However, under Article 78 which is similar to section 67 of the Evidence Act," he signatures and writings on these documents have to be proved to be of the persons who are alleged to have written these documents. This handwriting can be proved either by calling the persons who has written these documents or by the evidence of the person, who is acquainted with their handwritings. Under Article 61 of the Qanoon‑e‑Shahadat which replaces section 57 of the Evidence Act "when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom the document was written or signed the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is the relevant fact." In the instant case, the plaintiffs have proved these documents by examining P.W. Javed Hussain, who is the General‑Manager of the Plaintiffs and employees, who have written these documents were working under him. He states, that some of these employees have left the service of the plaintiffs, and some are still in service. However, he states, that he is .acquainted with their handwriting and has identified their handwritings and signatures. In Mubarak Alt's case reported in A I R 1957 S C 857 it is observed as under:‑ "Proof of the authorship of a document like the proof of any other matter, can be provided either by direct or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. Authorship of a document can be proved in any of the following ways: (1) Direct evidence of a person who has seen that very document being written or signed by the accused. (2) Opinion of a handwriting expert on a comparison of the writing of the signature of the document in question with the writing of signature on another document which is proved or admitted to have been written or signed by the accused. (3) Opinion of a person acquainted ,with the handwriting of the accused by reason of having seen him writing, or by reason of having received documents, purporting to be written by him in the ordinary course of business:' In the case of Mst. Zainab Bibi and others v. Bilquees Bibi and others P L D 1981 S C 56 the certificate issued by one Mr.Shad was proved through a person, who identified his signature. Mr.Shad had become blind but was examined by other party and he was not certain of having executed such certificate. Their Lordships have held that by examining a witness who identified the signatures of the signatory the certificate was brought within the ambit of section 67 and onus shifted on respondent to prove the same having been a forged document. It was further held, that the documents having been duly proved could not be rejected merely because author of document was not certain of having executed the same." In view of the above legal position, in my opinion, these documents have been duly proved by the plaintiffs through their witness, Javed Hussain, and, therefore, the objection of the defendants is over ruled. The evidence as discussed above discloses common feature in all the three cases viz. abrupt fall in consumption of gas by all the three consumers from March, 1971, which continued upto November, 1972. After the investigation and checking by the plaintiff in December, 1972, their consumption of the gas again rose back to the normal average of the gas consumed by the defendants prior to the period in question. There is no evidence, that after December, 1972, the consumption of the gas of the defendants again fall to the level of their consumption in the period in question. It is contended, that during the period in question, there were disturbed conditions, as there were labour strike and go‑slow policy of the workers. P.W. Javed Hussain has submitted, that there was general labour problem in the year 1971‑72, but he is not sure, if there was any labour problem in the mills of the defts. As far as defendants in suit No.123 of 1973 and 125 of 1973 are concerned, no evidence has been led by the defendants to show, if there was any labour problem in their mills. In absence of any evidence produced by the defendants in these two suits, that there was any labour problem in their mills, it cannot be said, that consumption by these two defendants in the period in question fell because of labour problem. The defendants in the suit No.124 of 1973 have led evidence of D.A' Ameen Zuberi, who states, that the production in their milts was not normal in 1971‑

72. He has admitted, that in the written statement, the fact about the disturbance is not mentioned. Even he does not state in categorical terms, that there was any Labour problem in their mill, and what sort of problem it was, Exh.5/8, is reply sent by the defendants to the Legal notice issued by the plaintiff. Even in this reply, no such ground is pleaded. As a matter of fact, the main ground, urged by this witness to explain as to why there was fall in the consumption of gas during the period to question, is that defendants had changed their machinery from gas to electricity in 1971. He, however, does not state, that as to in which month, they converted their machinery from gas to electricity. Further more, in the reply Exh.5; 68, this ground has also not been raised. He does not controvert the evidence of the plaintiffs witness that after December, 1972, the gas consumption by the deft became normal. If the contention of the defendant, that they has converted their machinery from gas to electricity was correct, their consumption from December, 1972 would not have been raised to the level of the consumption prior to the period in question. This fact belies the contention, that drop in consumption was because of conversion of machinery from gas to electricity. No doubt, the criminal cases filed by the plaintiff against three defendants were dismissed by the Court. However, in the criminal cases the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Admittedly, there is no ocular evidence as to the actual commission of theft, hence the defendants were acquitted or discharged in the criminal cases. In the suit, however, the court has to assess the evidence produced by both the parties, keeping it in juxtaposition and then come to the conclusion as to the evidence of which party is more probable or believable. Reference may be made to the aforementioned case of Mst.Zainab Bibi. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in the case as under: "There is, however, a marked difference as to the effect of evidence in civil and criminal cases. Thus, whereas in a civil case a mere preponderance of probability is a sufficient basis of decision, in a criminal case persuasion of guilt must amount to "such a moral certainty as convinces the minds of the tribunal as reasonable men beyond the reasonable doubt," In a criminal case before the court is called upon to convict a person it has to satisfy itself brat possibility of the innocence is ruled out, in a civil case all that is necessary to insist upon is that the proof adduced in support of a fact is such that should make a prudent man to act upon the supposition that it exists." In the instant case, as already pointed, the shortfall in consumption of gas by the defendants in the period in question is proved by the plaintiff and is more or less admitted by the. defendants. The reason for this fall in consumption is not satisfactorily explained by the defendants, it cannot be mere co‑incidence, that as such as the plaintiff started keeping check and vigilance, the consumption of gas level rose normal level P.W. Javed Hussain has stated, in the cross‑examination, that the meters of defendants were not sealed till Dec. when they were sealed. There is no evidence in rebuttal. As already pointed, the inspection conducted by him of the meters of the defendants tends to show, that in December, 1972 the meters were sealed. In one of two cases as mentioned above; the seal was found to be broken and meter was reversed. As the meters were not sealed before December, 1972 the reversion of the metes could not ordinarily be detected. The contention of the plaintiff, that the defendants have reversed the meters find support from the aforementioned comparative statements showing the meter readings recorded by the meter reading staff and the maintenance staff. I have already discussed these statements and pointed, that the readings of these statements disclose, that the readings of the meters recorded by the meter reading staff were much lower than the reading recorded by the maintenance staff on the earlier dates. This evidence has also gone unrebutted. This proves the claim of the plaintiff, that the meter was being reversed and more gas was consumed by the defendants than the gas for which they made the payments under the bills. The plaintiff evidence has gone unrebutted in Suits No.123 and 125, and is not satisfactorily explained in Suit Nos.124 of 1973. In view of the fact, that the meters were being reversed from time to time there is no evidence to show, as to what actual quantity of the gas was consumed by each of the defendants. Under the circumstances, the method adopted by the defendants as disclosed by P.W. Javed Hussain for assessing dues, cannot be considered unfair or excessive. In view of the aforesaid discussions, my findings are in affirmative on Issue Nos.2,3,4,7 and

8. It is not denied, that the defendants did make payment of the gas consumed by them as per bills sent by the plaintiffs for the period in question. However, the learned counsel for the defendants has not been able to show, as to how the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any further payment when they arc able to prove, that the gas consumed by defendants was much more than the gas, for which they have made the payment. My finding is accordingly on issue No.6. I have already held, that the meter was being reversed by the defendants at the time, when recording was made by the meter reading staff on the basis of which the bills were issued. Under the circumstances, it will not be possible for the plaintiffs to prove as to how much exact quantity of the gas was consumed by the defendants. The plaintiffs witness, Javed Hussain, has stated, that they have calculated their claim on the basis of average consumption of the gas by each of the defendants prior to the period in question and by deducting from the same, the gas for which the defendants have made payment during the period in question. Under the circumstances of the cases, this method of calculation adopted by the plaintiffs cannot be considered as unfair or improper. My findings therefore, in affirmative on issues Nos.9 and

10. Issues Nos.11,12 ‑and

13. The burden of proof of issue No.11 was upon the defendants. As already pointed, the defendants in suits Nos.123 and 125 of 1974, have led no evidence. The defendants witness in suit No.124 of 1973 has also not said anything as to whether bill for December, 1972 was wrongful, illegal or unjust. As such my finding is in negative on this issue. In view of my findings of the above issues, my finding is in negative on issue No.12. On Issue No‑13, my finding is, that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the suit amount from each of the defendants. As for issue No.1, the learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to show, as to how the suit is not maintainable. In view of my findings on the above issues, my findings is in affirmative on issue No.1. The suit of the plaintiffs are decreed in the sum of Rs.1,13,022 against M/s.Tajuddin Silk Mills in Suit No.123 of 1973. It is also decreed in the sum of Rs.2,34,029.25 against M/s.Karim Silk Mills in suit No.124 of 1973, and in the sum of Rs.2,68,700.25 against M/s.H.M.Silk Mills in Suit No.125 of 1973. However, the plaintiffs are not awarded costs or interest as there is also contributory negligence on their part by not keeping proper vigilance and the possibility of complicity of their staff cannot be ruled out. These suits were disposed of by a short order dated 12‑10‑1987. Above the reasons are in support of the said order, A.A./S‑‑204/K Suits decreed.