1969 PLP 216 (SCMR)
A. M. QURESHI‑Petitioner Versus UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 216 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | A. M. QURESHI‑Petitioner Versus UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 216 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 216 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 216 (SCMR) (A. M. QURESHI‑Petitioner Versus UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Z. H. Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwar Ali Syed, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th January 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 25th April 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 of 1968).
Ss. 84 & 86‑Suit against foreign state for recovery of commission and damages for breach of contract‑Whether not maintainable without consent of Central Government‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court for delivering authoritative pronouncement on question. Gammon Layton v. Secretary of State, U. S. A. P L D 1965 Kar. 425 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner brought a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 45,19,333 on account of commission and damages for breach of contract. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of the Karachi Bench dismissed it on the view that the suit was not competent either against respondent No. 1 which was a foreign state or against No. 2 which was an integral part of respondent No. 1 and its Embassy in Pakistan. Sections 84 and 86 were duly examined and the latter was held to constitute a bar for such a suit. The learned Judge has found that a foreign state like respondent No. 1 can neither sue nor be sued as a juristic person in terms of rules 1 and 3 of Order I of the C. P. C. It can sue by virtue of section 84 but it cannot be sued as such apart from its ruler in terms of section 86 of the C. P. C. without the consent of the Central Government. An appeal preferred to the Letters Patent Bench was dismissed in limine by a summary order. In another case of Gammon Layton v. Secretary of State, U. S. A. (P L D 1965 Kar. 425), another learned Single Judge of the same Court has held that a foreign state does not enjoy immunity from being sued in the Municipal Courts of Pakistan and that a qualified immunity is available to rulers of such states which, however, does not extend to suits arising from commercial and trade transactions. So far as this Court is concerned, the question raised is a; first impression requiring an authoritative pronouncement. We A grant leave to appeal. Security for costs in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00. Leave granted.