2016 PLP 606 (CLD)
LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director — Petitioner Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL through President and Managing Director and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 606 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director — Petitioner Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL through President and Managing Director and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 606 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 606 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 606 (CLD) (LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director — Petitioner Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL through President and Managing Director and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Syed Hassan Ali Raza and Asad Javed for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Hafeez-ur-Rehman Ch. for Respondent No.3.
- Rustam Khan Parhar for Respondent No.4.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are foreign companies and they are doing the business of hotels through respondents Nos.3 and 4, although respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not the party to the alleged letter of intent dated 01.10.2010 but being the representative agent of respondents Nos.1 and 2 they are liable to pay the amount of decree if passed.
- 4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 submits that admittedly respondents Nos.3 and 4 have no privity of contract with the petitioner, the petitioner has wrongly involved the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in the case. No doubt respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the franchise is not an agreement of agency, it can maximum be said that it is a license to utilize the name of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the suit is not maintainable, respondents Nos.3 and 4 are franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and not the agents, hence the learned trial court has rightly accepted the application.
- 7. Learned counsel for petitioner frankly admits that there is no agreement between the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4, respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been impleaded as party as they are franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and in case decree is passed the same will be recoverable from respondents Nos.3 and 4 being the agents of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have specifically stated that respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not their agents, they are franchise holders and as such they are the licensee of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 have no privity of contract with the petitioner, hence no suit is maintainable against respondents Nos.3 and 4. The suit against respondents Nos.1 and 2 has been entertained by the learned trial court issues have been framed and it will be decided after recording the evidence in accordance with law. In case decree is passed; the petitioner may got attached the franchise fee payable to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the petitioner cannot implead respondents Nos.3 and 4 as party to the suit as there is no grievance shown against respondents Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order which can be examined in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision thus fails and is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
O. I, R. 10 & O. VII, R. 11
Names of defendants were deleted from suit and plaint was rejected to their extent
Plaintiff, a private limited company filed suit for damages on ground that defendants, foreign companies, had failed to fulfil their part of undertaking as agreed upon through a Letter of Intent, and other defendants were franchise holders, had represented said foreign companies in Pakistan
Defendants, franchise holders, filed application under O. I, R. 10 & O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. on the ground that they were neither privy to the contract between plaintiff and the foreign companies, nor were they representing them in Pakistan, which was allowed by Trial Court and their names were deleted from array of defendants
Plaintiff contended that defendants, franchise holders, being representative agents were liable to pay decretal amount, in case the suit was decreed
No agreement existed between plaintiff and defendants, franchise holders, who had stated that they were not agents of defendants, foreign companies, and being franchise holder, they were only their licensee
Plaintiff could not implead the franchise holders, as there was no grievance against them
Present suit was, therefore, not maintainable against the franchise holders
High Court observed that plaintiff might got attached franchise fee payable to defendants, foreign companies by defendants, franchise holders, in case present suit was decreed
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID MAHMOOD KHAN, J.
Through this Civil Revision the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.3.2012 whereby the application of respondents Nos.3 and 4 under Order VII, Rule 11 and under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was allowed.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 having its registered office at Lahore, filed a suit for recovery of damages amounting to 10 Million U.S$ equivalent to Rs.850 Million, suffered due to violation of letter of intent dated 01.10.2010, claiming that respondents No.1 are the companies who entered into LOI dated 01.10.2010 with the petitioner, respondents Nos.1 and 2 failed to fulfill their part of undertaking/understanding. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and
2. No damages were claimed from respondents Nos.3 and 4 but they were impleaded as party to the suit claiming that they are the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and are representing respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Pakistan. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. claiming that there is no privity of contract between respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner nor respondents No.3 and 4 are representing respondents Nos.1 and
2. The learned trial court vide order dated 06.3.2012 accepted the application and deleted the names of respondents Nos.3 and 4 from the array of respondents, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are foreign companies and they are doing the business of hotels through respondents Nos.3 and 4, although respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not the party to the alleged letter of intent dated 01.10.2010 but being the representative agent of respondents Nos.1 and 2 they are liable to pay the amount of decree if passed.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 submits that admittedly respondents Nos.3 and 4 have no privity of contract with the petitioner, the petitioner has wrongly involved the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in the case. No doubt respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the franchise is not an agreement of agency, it can maximum be said that it is a license to utilize the name of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the suit is not maintainable, respondents Nos.3 and 4 are franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and not the agents, hence the learned trial court has rightly accepted the application.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner frankly admits that there is no agreement between the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4, respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been impleaded as party as they are franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and in case decree is passed the same will be recoverable from respondents Nos.3 and 4 being the agents of respondents Nos.1 and
2. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have specifically stated that respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not their agents, they are franchise holders and as such they are the licensee of respondents Nos.1 and
2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 have no privity of contract with the petitioner, hence no suit is maintainable against respondents Nos.3 and
4. The suit against respondents Nos.1 and 2 has been entertained by the learned trial court issues have been framed and it will be decided after recording the evidence in accordance with law. In case decree is passed; the petitioner may got attached the franchise fee payable to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the petitioner cannot implead respondents Nos.3 and 4 as party to the suit as there is no grievance shown against respondents Nos.3 and
4. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order which can be examined in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision thus fails and is dismissed. SL/L-9/L Revision dismissed.