1989 PLP 426 (CLC)

‑‑‑5.9 & O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Suit for damages‑‑Plaintiff incurred loss due to defendant's managing to obtain temporary injunction against plaintiff allegedly by making gross mis‑statements and suppression of facts‑‑Defendant choosing to remain absent in spite of service of process on him‑‑Plaint verified on oath and supported by documents which had gone unchallenged and unrebutted‑‑Evidence of plaintiff leading to conclusion that he had suffered loss of reputation as well as money‑‑Damages of rupees fifty lacs claimed by plaintiff, however, appearing to be exaggerated were reduced to Rupees ten lacs in circumstances. Muhammad Zaki Ahmed for Plaintiff. (Absent). Nemo for Defendant. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,000 as damages.

2. The plaintiff Maymar Housing Services (Private) Limited has filed this suit stating that it is one of the most reputed builders and developers of Pakistan. In order to perform its functions promptly and efficiently it has to engage a number of workers and to procure substantial quantities of building materials from time .to time. The labour force once engaged by it for any project has to be retained until completion of the said project. Similarly the perishable building material procured by the plaintiff is to be kept stored on account of the uncertain supply position. In the month of June, 1985 the plaintiff was, inter alia, engaged in the construction of houses in a scheme of low cost housing sponsored by K . D. A . popularly known as Surjani Township. On or about 25th June, 1985 when the construction work on the plaintiff's said project was in full bloom, the defendant filed a civil Suit No.2165/1985 against the plaintiff and 3 others in the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. In the said suit the defendant claimed title in respect of 50 acres of agricultural land in Deh Surjani, which was alleged to be leased to the defendant for a period of 30 years. The defendant succeeded in obtaining a temporary injunction by making gross mis‑statements and suppression of facts as shown in para 7 of the plaint. He knew that the injunction .he was applying for would inevitably cause great loss and injury to the plaintiff in terms of money as well as reputation. The defendant managed to obtain temporary injunction on or about 27‑6‑1985 which remained into force upto 2‑12‑1985 when the defendant's injunction application was ultimately dismissed by VIth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West). The defendant preferred an appeal which was heard by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi who also dismissed the same. On 13‑4‑1987 the suit of the defendant was also dismissed by Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. On account of the above malicious prosecution the plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs.50,00,000 the detail of which he has given in para 17 of his plaint. Hence this suit.

3. The defendant has chosen to remain absent in spite of service. Hence the suit has proceeded ex parte.

4. The plaint is verified on oath and is supported by the copies of the injunction application, injunction order, the plaint and other relevant orders and notices etc.

5. The above evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged ands unrebutted. I am satisfied from the above evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has suffered a loss of reputation as well as money. :~ However, I feel that the damages, claimed by the plaintiff, are somewhat exaggerated. I, therefore, propose to reduce the sum. Consequently I decree the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs.10,00,

000. The costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendant. M.Y.H./M‑593/K Suit decreed.