P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Letters are not evidence of the facts stated. It is only a statement made by a person in the witness‑box that is an evidence unless the case falls under some clause of section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. A. Aziz and Sulleman Umar for Appellant. Nasir Shahmir for Respondent. Date of hearing : 24‑11‑

58. On 29th May 1952 there was an agreement between the defendant‑applicant and the plaintiff‑opponent relating to the supply of 6 tons of round bars. The plaintiff‑opponent is what is called an indentor i.e., a commission agent who books orders for 'the purchase of goods from abroad. The contracts with the indentors are entered into after the indentors obtain the consent of the suppliers of foreign countries. The contract between the parties in the present case contains a clause, as such contracts usually do, that the defendant‑applicant will open a letter of credit in the country from which the goods are to be purchased in order to cover the risk incurred by the suppliers in sending the goods to Pakistan. This letter of credit was not in fact opened by the defendant‑applicant. The opponent served a notice on the applicant saying that the suppliers had themselves purchased the goods which were to be supplied to the applicant but as the letter of credit had not been opened they were forced to sell the same goods in the market and they suffered thereby a loss of . 220‑0‑0 which the applicant should pay. The applicant having failed to pay the suit out of which this revision application arises was filed in the Court of Small Causes, Karachi. The applicant raised various pleas one of which alone is now necessary to refer to. It was that there was no purchase or sale by the alleged suppliers and no damages had been incurred. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, relying upon two letters which were sent by the suppliers to the opponent held that damages had been proved. These letters contain statements to the effect that goods had been purchased and subsequently sold at a loss it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that these letters had not be‑n proved and therefore should not be made the basis of any finding.` Learned counsel for the opponent is unable to refer to any .evidence proving these two letters. The letters had been simply produced without any evidence as to the hand‑writing or the signature on the letters. However there is even a further difficulty in the way of the opponent. Supposing that the letters were proved they do not at all establish that there was a purchase and a sale. The letters are not evidence of the facts stated. It is only a statement made by a person in the witness‑box that is an evidence unless the case falls under some clause of section 32 of the Evidence Act. There is not even a suggestion from learned counsel for the opponent that section 32 has any application. Obviously there is on this record no evidence at all of the purchase or sale of the goods or of the alleged loss. This revision application is accepted and the decree of the Small Causes Court is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. K.B.A. Application accepted.