1990 PLP 1576 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑5. 73‑‑‑Breach of contract‑‑‑Damages‑‑‑Contractor having failed to supply goods on contracted price, department purchased same from some other person at the risk of contractor and claimed damages on basis of difference between contracted price and that of market price at which goods were purchased by the department‑‑‑Appellate Court below having failed to deal with question of damages satisfactorily, case was remanded with consent of parties to determine issue of damages afresh on basis of evidence on record and on evidence parties would like to adduce.‑‑‑[Damages]. Dastgir Ghazi for the Applicants. Shafaat Hussain for the Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1989. This petition for Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18‑2‑1984 passed by the Ex Officio Addl. District Judge, Karachi whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The facts leading to the filing of the above civil revision are that the respondent submitted quotations for supply of plugs and space sockets on 13‑3 1973. The quotations of the respondent were accepted by the petitioners. The terms and conditions of the contract between the parties were to be governed by P.S. ' 35 prescribed by the Government of Pakistan. The respondent did not furnish security and did not supply plugs and space sockets to the petitioners. Ultimately after exchange of correspondence the petitioners purchased the contracted items from another contractor at the risk and cost of the respondent. The petitioners directed the respondent to pay Rs. 51,130 being the difference between the contracted price and the price paid to the new contractor. The respondent filed suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit. The trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties led evidence in support of their versions. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence dismissed the suit. The respondent went in appeal. The learned appellate Court taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, reversed the finding on issue No.6. He decreed the suit for Rs.1,

814. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Ex Officio Additional Distt. Judge, Karachi have filed the present revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. It is an admitted position that the respondent offered to supply plugs and sockets to the petitioners. The respondent quoted the price of the above said items at Rs.39,500. 1t is also an admitted position that the said items were not supplied to the petitioners. The petitioners ultimately invited fresh tenders. The contractor quoted this price of the said items at Rs.90,

720. The petitioners claimed Rs.51,130 on the basis of repurchase. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the finding on issue No.6. I am unable to accept the finding of the learned Ex Officio Additional Distt. Judge that the petitioners were entitled to damages on the basis of difference between the contracted price and the market price on that date that is 30‑11‑1973. In my view, the question of damages has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Court below. Both the learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that this is a fit case for remand. I, think the request is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. In the result Civil Revision No.263 of 1984 is allowed and the finding on issue No.6 is set aside and the appeal is sent back to the appellate Court for determination of this issue on the evidence already on record and on such evidence that the parties may like to adduce. The parties are directed through A their counsel to appear before the District Judge, East Karachi on 13‑1‑1990. The learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months from 13‑1‑1990. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. H.B.T./I‑114/K Order accordingly.