P L D 2000 Karachi 22 (PLP)

(3) Are the defendants or any of them liable to pay the plaintiff the amount claimed in the suit? (4) What should the decree be? The plaintiffs examined one witness whereas the defendant No. 1 has examined one witness i.e. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan. My findings with regard to the issues are as follows: ISSUE NO. 1: Learned counsel for the defendant No. l did not particularly address me on this point. In so far as the pleadings of defendant No. l are concerned, they have maintained that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter because contract between defendants Nos. l and 2 was signed in Islamabad. This I find to be a weak argument inasmuch as the primary principle for founding of jurisdiction is that the jurisdiction follows the defendants. Considering that the Government of Pakistan, which is defendant No. l is deemed to be resident throughout Pakistan therefore this Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. Consequently my findings with regard to this issue are in the negative. ISSUE N0.2: The plaintiffs have exhibited a letter written by defendant No.l addressed to the defendant No.2 being Ex.No.06/88 which reads as under: "Appointment of M/s. Manhattan Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. as Ad. Agent for M/s. Instant Help Limited. Reference your letter Nil dated March 4, 1990. Press Information Department is pleased to approve the appointment of M/s. Manhattan Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited as advertising agent for M/s. Instant Help Limited, Karachi, to handle the advertising of fund raising programme. (Sd.) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD), Deputy Director (Advt.)." This letter was copied to the plaintiffs as well. The plaintiffs' entire case whereby they wish to involve the defendant No. l in the dealings with the Defendant No.2, mainly rests on this .letter. It is the contention of the plaintiff that since. the defendant No. l had approved the appointment of plaintiffs as the Advertising Agency for defendant No. 2, it would mean that the defendant No. l were also liable to the plaintiff for payment of their dues. However, a critical examination of this letter would reveal that the approval was .not that of appointment of the plaintiffs but an approval of a proposal made by the defendant No. 2 for such appointment. Now it is a known fact that whenever the Government enters into any Agreement with a party which involves appointing a sub-agent by such other party, the Government invariably and rightly so reserves the right to approve or not to approve the appointment of such sub-agent. This is done often for security reasons and also for keeping undesirable elements. away from any direct dealings with the Government. -Reserving of such right of enforcing it would not entail or constitute an approval of the Sub-Agent's, work itself or tying about any contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between the Government or such sub-agents. When therefore, the Government, defendant No. 1, states that they have no contractual relationship with the plaintiffs, they are right., The learned counsel for the plaintiffs took pains to explain that even though there may not be any direct contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, there is an implied contractual relationship as per provision of section 70 of the Contract Act. It may be appropriate to reproduce section 70 of the Contract Act, which is as below;-- "

70. Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, arid such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered." Now it is well-established that before this section can be invoked there are three conditions that must be met: (1) That a person must lawfully do something for another person and. deliver something to him. (2) That in doing the said. thing or delivering the said thing, he must not e intend to act gratuitously. (3) That the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. If a conclusion is reached to the effect that section 70 is applicable and if there is no contractual term fixing the compensation for the work done or services rendered then the Court can grant compensation "quantum meruit". "Quantum meruit" is nothing but a reasonable compensation awarded on implication of contract to remunerate. It cannot be granted where contract provides for consideration payable in that behalf, as in this case the contract between plaintiff and defendant No.2 does. Looking at circumstances of this case, in the light of the above three conditions, in so far as the first condition is concerned, it is clear that the plaintiffs have done nothing nor have delivered anything to the defendant No.

1. All they have done is to fulfil their contractual obligation to the defendant No.2. The defendant No. 1 has also been brought into picture only because it is a Government scheme for promotion of health program that was subject-matter of the advertisement that the plaintiffs took out under their contractual obligation to the defendant No.2. Consequently, in my view the plaintiffs have really done nothing in so far as the defendant No. l is concerned. In so far as the second condition is concerned, it need not be dwelled upon since it is obvious that it was not gratuitous service that was rendered by the plaintiff. As far as third condition is concerned, a question to this effect was put by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1's witness during the cross-examination but such question was disallowed by the Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs have not proved that the services rendered by the plaintiffs in this connection were for the benefit of defendant No. l . Even if one disregards the fact that such question by the plaintiffs' counsel was disallowed, it is clear from the pleadings and the general evidence brought on record that the rendering of services by the plaintiffs was not meant to confer any benefit on defendant No.

1. There is wealth of case-law to support the view that it is not enough that the work of which compensation is sought should result in benefit to the defendant, it must be for his benefit. It is obvious that no benefit could accrue to the defendant No.l from promoting of a health program, which in any case is a function of defendant No.1 in its capacity as the Ministry of Health. Benefit if any, has accrued to defendant No.2. In my view this case does not fall within the purview of section 70 of the Contract Act at all. ISSUE N0.3: From the discussion under the above issue, it is clear that the defendant No. l have no liability whatsoever to the plaintiff. However, the fact that the plaintiffs' case has gone unrebutted by the defendant No.2 and that there is sufficient evidence that there was a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. I hold that the defendant No.2 are liable to the plaintiffs for the claim in suit. The result of the above discourse is that this suit is dismissed as against the defendant No.1 and decreed as against defendant No.2 as prayed. H.B.T./M-471 /K Order accordingly