2010 PLP 1047 (MLD)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

Through this C.M.A. the defendant No.4 seeks stay of further proceedings of the suit inasmuch as that the suit cannot proceed further as the plaintiffs are litigating under the title Messrs Tahir Omer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.,/consignee and that such consignee are the plaintiff in Admiralty Suit No.30 of 2006 and that4.they have been subrogated by the present plaintiff in this suit and therefore, by reason of such subrogation their right and remedy to claim amount in this suit would mean to claim exactly the same relief as claimed in Admiralty Suit No.30 of 2006 and therefore, this suit cannot proceed further and is liable to be stayed. Such a position has been vehemently refuted by Mr. Lari, appearing for the plaintiff on the ground that the present suit is limited to the extent of recovery of Rs.6,620,332 which according to him is the amount paid by the plaintiff to the importers under Marine Insurance Policy and therefore, they are entitled to claim the same amount from the defendants and that the recovery of this amount has no nexus or connection to the recovery sought in Admiralty Suit No. 30 of 2006. Mr. Lari further contends that amount of Rs.6,620,332 having been paid by the plaintiff to the importers namely Messrs Tahir Omer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. the suit amount in such suit (Adm Suit No. 30 of 2006) has been reduced and the amended title has also been filed therein. Bare perusal of section 10, C.P.C. would show that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in Pakistan having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of Pakistan established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. It would be clear from the provision of section 10, C.P.C. that it is essential that the suit which is sought to be stayed contains the same parties as are arrayed in the previously instituted suit and that the cause of action is also the same. In the present case while the plaintiff is New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. the defendants are:-- 1) Messrs Shenzhou Shipping Ltd., 2) Messrs Constellation Navigation Ltd., 3) Messrs Samta Ship Management (Pvt.) Ltd., 4) Messrs Alpine Marine Services (Pvt.) Ltd., and the cause of action arose to the plaintiff after payment of Rs.6,620,332 having been made by them to the importers. The suit filed previously was instituted by Messrs Tahir Umer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. against the following defendants:-- 1) M.T. Pacific Jade, 2) Messrs Shenzhou Shipping Ltd., 3) Messrs Constellation Navigation Ltd., 4) Messrs Samta Ship Management (Pvt.) Ltd., 5) Messrs Alpine Marine Services (Pvt.) Ltd., and therefore, in my opinion the parties to the lis are different and distinct and cause of action of both the suits is also distinct and different. Even amount stated to be recovered in this suit is distinct and different and has no connection to the amount of damages sought to be recovered in Adm. Suit No.30 of 2006. Moreover, the instant suit is under ordinary jurisdiction of this Court while Suit No.30 of 2006 is filed under Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and is governed by Admiralty Laws. Such being the position, I am not inclined to allow present application and the same is therefore, dismissed being misconceived and not maintainable. M.U.Y./N-24/K Application dismissed.