MLD 1994

1994 PLP 497 (MLD)

Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others — Plaintiffs Versus Rana MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Defendants

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
1993-January-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 497 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others — Plaintiffs Versus Rana MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Defendants
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 497 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 497 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 497 (MLD) (Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others — Plaintiffs Versus Rana MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • Service of the suit was effected on the defendants but they have remained absent and accordingly the suit was fixed for final disposal. On the last date Mr. Ali Kamm Advocate for the plaintiffs undertook to file an affidavit in ex parte proof of plaintiffs' claim. Such affidavit has been filed and is on record.

Headnotes / Summary

O. IX, R.6

Ex parte decree

Defendants against whom suit for recovery of amount was filed by plaintiffs, were duly served, but they remained absent on various dates when case was fixed before Court

Claim of plaintiffs having remained unchallenged they were entitled to receive amount claimed by them from defendants

Suit was decreed against defendants jointly and severally for sum claimed by plaintiffs.

Judgment & Decree

This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and recovery of Rs.1,59,27,683 from the defendants by way of damages. The plaintiff No.3 is a partnership concern of which the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are the partners and the defendant No.2 is a proprietorship concern of which defendant No.1 is the proprietor. It is alleged that the plaintiff No.3 was appointed sole agent of Java Motor-cycle 350 cc by the Commercial Counsellor of D.P.R. Korean Embassy, Karachi. The plaintiff appointed the defendant as their import agent in respect of these motor-cycles. The plaintiff, after obtaining necessary permission from the Chief Controller, Import and Export, Government of Pakistan, placed orders on the Commercial Counsellor of D.P.R. Korean Embassy for import of 850 Java Motor-cycles and these arrived in Karachi between January, 1991 and March, 1991. Some spare parts in respect of these motor-cycles, were, however, short landed and were subsequently air-lifted to Karachi. These motor-cycles were got cleared by the defendants and were kept in the custody of the defendants. Subsequently, 100 motor-cycles out of these were sold to the Sindh Police by the plaintiff and the defendants were required to deliver the same, however, the defendants failed to do so and instead asked the plaintiff to pay them an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000 without providing any details. It is stated that later the defendants made efforts to get themselves appointed as sole agent in place of the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that all these motor-cycles are in the custody of the defendants and they have refused to deliver these to the plaintiffs or to the parties to whom. these were sold by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that without authority from the plaintiffs the defendants are making efforts to sell these motor-cycles of their own although they have no authority to do so. In these circumstances, the present suit has been filed claiming declaration, injunction and damages. Service of the suit was effected on the defendants but they have remained absent and accordingly the suit was fixed for final disposal. On the last date Mr. Ali Kamm Advocate for the plaintiffs undertook to file an affidavit in ex parte proof of plaintiffs' claim. Such affidavit has been filed and is on record. It appears from para. 19 of the plaint as also from the affidavit filed in ex parte proof that an amount of Rs.33,77,683 has been paid from time to time by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards various expenses incurred on the imported motor-cycles, such as, licence fee, insurance, demurrage, godown charges, wharfage, transport etc. which totalled to Rs.10,83,838 and further sums of Rs.6,30,000, Rs.11,79,500, Rs.4,71,820 and Rs.12,525 were paid by the plaintiffs towards the customs duty, C.P.F. Bond and payment made to the defendants. Thus, an amount of Rs.33,77,683 has been paid in all by the plaintiffs towards these motor-cycles. In addition a further amount of Rs.1,25,50,000 has been claimed in the plaint as damages but the counsel for the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' representative do not press that claim. Similarly, the relief for declaration and injunction are also given up. Plaintiffs' counsel and their representative press only the claim for Rs.33,77,683 and state that this represents the money actually spent by the plaintiffs on the said motor-cycles directly and through the defendants as mentioned in para. 19 of the plaint. As stated earlier, although, the defendants had been served they have remained absent on the various dates when the suit was fixed before the Additional Registrar as well as in Court and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to Rs.33,77,683 has remained unchallenged. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive this amount from the defendants. I, therefore, decree the suit against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs.33,77,683 with costs. H.B.T./M-1827/K Suit decreed.