1993 PLP 1229 (CLC)

This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:‑ (a) that the defendant No.1do make over and deliver the Saudagar Ice Factory situated at Plot No.LY‑I (AL‑1‑155‑2/1 C/P) opposite Madina Masjid, Chelaram Dhaloomal Road, Near Khadda Fish Market, Karachi with all machinery fixtures, tools spare harts etc. as per list "A" annexed to the Agreement of 1‑9‑1974 in good order and condition making compensation to the plaintiffs for any items of machinery etc. unreasonably damaged or missing; (b) that the defendant No.1do pay to the plaintiffs, the sum of Rs.1,900 at Rs.100 per day from Ist. June, 1975 up to date of suit and further mesne profits from date of suit till possession is obtained by the plaintiffs at the same rate; (c) that the defendant No.1do pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs.9,500 in respect of the promissory note dated 13th September, 1974, with interest on the said amount at 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment; (d) that the defendant No.1do pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs.18,812.63 being the compensation charges and electricity charges with interest thereon at 6% from date of suit till payment; (e) for a declaration that the plaintiffs arc not liable for any charges or obligation whatsoever to the defendant No.2 in respect of the power supply to the factor from Ist June, 1975; (I) for an injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from continuing supply of electricity to the‑ factory; (g) for an injunction restraining the defendant No.1from using the electric connection for utilising power in the factory; (h) for such other reliefs that to this Hon'ble Court may appear proper; (i) for costs of suit. The defendants filed the written statement in denial of the claim of the plaintiffs. The claims of the plaintiffs are mainly has on the facts that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Ice Factory, which was on licence with the defendant No.1but subsequently due to default committed by defendant No.l, his lincence was cancelled. During the course of dealings the defendant No.1had also executed certain promissory notes and was liable to pay the liabilities, pertaining to electricity charges etc. The issues were settled. The defendant No.1had remained absent in spite of the fact that notices were sent to him directly also. Ultimately, he has been served through publication but he is absent. None is present for defendant No.2. The plaintiff have filed their affidavit‑in‑evidence wherein it is admitted that the possession of the factory has since been handed over to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff in his affidavit has further stated that he gives up the claim against defendant No.2. In para. 11 of affidavit‑in‑evidence the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.9,500 towards the amount outstanding on promissory note. He also claims an amount of Rs.18,812.63 being the compensation charges and electricity charges for the period the factory was with the defendant No .l. The total amount thus comes to Rs.28,312.63. Since there is no denial of the plaintiffs claim nor any evidence has been brought on record by the defendants, who are absent, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in the sum of Rs.28,312.63 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment. The cost of the suit will be borne by defendant No.l. The suit is dismissed against defendant No.2. The counter? claim advanced by the defendant No.1is also dismissed. AA./S‑786/K. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly,