1986 PLP 444 (CLC)

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maritime lien on the defendant No. 3 for the necessaries supplied as claimed in paragraph 14 of the plaint? (3) Whether the plaintiff supplied necessaries as claimed in pare. 14 of the plaint to defendant No.

3. If so, whether it was at the instance of defendant 2? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim in suit, and if so from whom? (5) What should the decree be?

4. In support of the claim the plaintiffs examined Muhammad Yaseen Khan P.W. 1 (Exh.3) and Mr. Abdul Karim Suleman Panjwani, their Managing Director, P.W. 2 (Exh. 4).

5. Muhammad Yaseen Khan, P.W. 1 (Exh. 3) has produced schedule of particulars of receipts and expenditure incurred in connection with 7 voyages of defendant No. 3 as Exh. 3/1 to Exh. 3/7, supported by vouchers and receipts. He has also produced a complete statement of seven voyages (Exh. 3/17) and also a summary thereof (Exh. 3/19) and correspondence between plaintiffs and defendant 1 (Exhs. 3/18 to 3/27). According to Abdul Karim Suleman P.W. 2 (Exh. 4) the plaintiffs supplied necessaries etc. of the total amount of Rs.2,78,487.68 and received a total sum of Rs.1,75,978.62 leaving the balance of Rs.1,02,509.06 outstanding. Another sum of Rs.5,000 was received by the plaintiffs leaving a sum of Rs.97,509.06 due and payable by defendants 1 to 3 for which the suit has been filed. The first witness produced inter alia a copy of summary of accounts of voyages 1 to 5 of defendant 3 (Exh.3/16). He produced the summary of statement of accounts of the seven voyages (Exh. 3/21). He proved the signature of Captain of defendant 3 thereon.

6. So far as the first witness is concerned only a suggestion was made to him by Mr. Muhammad Shafi learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 that the signature of the Captain on the summary of accounts and seal of the Captain thereon were forged. This suggestion was denied by the witness as being incorrect. In reply to another question of the learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 the witness denied the suggestion that defendants 2 and 3 did not owe any amount to the plaintiffs. He stated that he prepared the statement of accounts from the accounts books which are kept in due course of business.

7. The other witness namely, Abdul Karim Suleman Panjwani P.W. 2 (Exh. 4) also identified the signature of the Captain on (Exh. 3/21). His cross‑examination is very brief and I may quote the same in extenso: "It is correct that the business in my company is carried on under my advice and supervision. It is incorrect that our claim is false because the defendant had paid our dues. They have not paid the dues."

8. Now, considering the issues it may be stated that the burden of proving issue 1 is on the defendants. Today none of the defendants or their Advocate is present and no arguments have been advanced on this issue. I, therefore, decide this issue against the defendants.

9. Mr. S. Nasiruddin learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that he does not press issue No. 2.

10. So far as issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned there is evidence of Muhammad Yaseen Khan, P.W. 1 (Exh. 3), and Abdul Karim Sulemanl Panjwani, P.W. 2 (Exh. 4) as discussed above in support of the claim made by the plaintiffs. In the cross‑examination of P.W. 2 the amount of which the necessaries were supplied is impliedly admitted but the claim that the amount due was paid has not been proved by any evidence, oral or documentary. Since no evidence whatsoever, has been led in rebuttal I accept the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses and decree the suit against defendants 1 to 3 as prayed and dismiss the same against defendants 4 and 5 with no order as to costs, as no case is made out against them. H . B . T . Suit decreed