Find a Lawyer

Suit No. 103 of 1983, decided on 13th February, 1985.

---Ss. 10, 73 & 74--Damages--Defendant's announcement in paper inviting research papers offering prize for best paper--Plaintiff sending his research paper but receiving no reply about acceptability or otherwise--Plaintiff's claim that contract between parties had been completed and as such he was entitled to amount claimed--No contract concluded between parties--No letter filed to indicate that paper submitted by plaintiff was accepted as the best research paper--Even if his paper had been accepted and prize had not been paid, he could not claim damages--Suit for claiming damages, held, was not maintainable in cirumstances.

---Art. 65--Limitation--Suit for damages--Suit filed in 1983, cause of action having been arisen in 1973--Claim of plaintiff in suit, held, was patently barred by time. Plaintiff in person. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1985.

This suit has been filed by plaintiff, Mr. Naseer Ahmed Shaikh, against Secretary-General, Islamic Secretariat, Jeddah and Director, Economic Affairs Division, Islamic Secretariat, Jeddah, for the recovery of Rs. 11,62,000 on account of prize money for research paper and damages. According to the plaint, Islamic Secretariat is now known as "Organisation of Islamic Conference". According to the plaint, the defendants had made announcements in the Pakistan Press on 25-2-1973 inviting research papers on certain economic subjects. It was further stated in the annoucement that the research scholar, whose paper was found to be the best research paper on the topic in question, would be awarded a prize of 8,000 Saudi Rials. According to the plaintiff, he sent five copies of his reserach paper "Analytical criticism of Economic theories of interest and its application in the light of Islamic ways of life" to the defendants, which papers were duly received by the defendants but thereafter there was no response in spite of several letters written by the plaintiff to the defendants. In paragraph 5 it is averred that as no reply was received from the defendants, the plaintiff "strongly presumes that the said paper has duly been accepted to be the best on the subject noted above". It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had to suffer great mental strain in waiting for the response from the defendants and he developed arthiritis as a result thereof and the plaintiff has been spending huge amounts of money on his medical treament but has not recovered and he developed a long-life disability on account of mental affliction caused by the defendants thus reducing the plaintiff's capability of earning livelihood for himself. He had filed an earlier suit for declaration and entitlement of recovery of Saudi Rials 8,000 in the civil Court at Karachi in 1979 but the said suit was dismissed by the civil Court under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and the appeal and revision filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed. The plaintiff has claimed 8,000 Saudi Rials as the prize money and damages at the rate of 3,000 Saudi Rials per month which amount to 3,32,000 Saudi Rials and both these claims are equivalent to Rs. 11,62,000, according to the plaintiff, for which amount a decree is claimed in the present suit. No appearance has been made on behalf of the defendants. I have heard the plaintiff in person. Mr. M.M. Pirzada, who wa appearing as Advocate, had appeared in the morning but the plaintiff Pad stated that he would argue the case and as such Mr. M.M. Pirzada withdrew from the case 2. It was argued by the plaintiff that the contract between the parties had been completed and as such he was entitled to the amount claimed. In my view the present suit is not maintainable. From the averments in the plaint itself it is apparent that no contract had been concluded between the parties. No letter has been filed to indicate that the paper submitted by the plaintiff had been accepted as the best research paper. No doubt the plaintiff had taken great pains and put in a lot of labour in producing the research paper but this by itself does not entitle the plaintiff to claim the prize of 8,000 Rials. Then the claim of damages is also misconceived. If the paper of the plaintiff has not been accepted, he could not claim any damages. Even if his paper had been accepted and the prize had not been paid he could not claim damages for developing arthiritis during this period. 3. The suit is also barred by limitation. The announcement had, on the showing of the plaintiff himself, appeared in the Pakistani Press in February, 1973 and the last date for submission of such research F paper was till 30-11-1973. The present suit has been filed in this Court on 9-1-1983. The claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is patently barred by time. 4. Suit No. 103 of 1983 is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs, as no appearance has been made on behalf of the defendants. A.A. Suit dismssied.

Suit No. 64 of 1974, decided on 6th March, 1985.

---S. 3--Lease tenure--Taken over as enemy property-Defendants auction-purchasers on same terms and conditions which were settled with original lessees--Demand by plaintiff for enhanced rent refused by defendants--Suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of outstanding dues at enhanced rates--Defendants' previous suit having been dismissed--Letters patent appeal--During pendency of plaintiff's suit, letters patent appeal of defendants accepted--Effect--Held, alomst all issues in suit, stood settled by virtue of judgment in letters patent appeal--Plaintiff's revised claim in light of letters patent appeal therefore was accepted and decreed. Zaheeruddin for Appellant. Iqbal Siddiqui for Respondent.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the Port of Karachi, had leased out a plinth No. B-11, measuring 2,083 Sq. Yards. at Thola Produce Yard (abbreviately stated as "T.P.X.") Karachi, to M/s. Narayandas Rajaram and Co. (Private) Ltd., initially for the period from 11-4-1958 to 31-3-1964. The lease tenure was subsequently extended to 31-3-1974. The lessee had put up some constructions thereon in the shape of sheds. After outbreak of the war between Pakistan and India in the year, 1965, the lessees were declared as enemy concern and their interest in the plinth and the constructions thereon was taken over by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi in the capacity of the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property. The lease told rights over the plinth and also the constructions thereon were auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property and they were purchased by M/s. United Cotton and Wool Traders, Karachi, the defendant No. 1. The transferees in auction of the leasehold rights and sheds paid the ground rent for the plinth at the rate which was settled with the original lessees. The plaintiffs accepted the rent for the period of one year ending on 23-12-1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs asked for the ground rent at enhanced rate contending that the leasehold rights and sheds were auctioned to the defendant No. 1 for the period of one year and they were liable to pay the ground rent at the rate prevailing at different times. The defendant No. 1 did not concede to the contention of the plaintiffs and the dispute between them culminated in litigation. The defendant No. 1 filed Suit No. 99/67 for declaration that they had purchased in auction the sheds and leasehold rights of the original lessees and injunction against recovery of rent from them. The plaintiffs herein, who were one of the defendants, resisted the suit. The suit was dismissed by a single Judge of this Court by Judgment dated 23-9-1970. The plaintiffs called upon the defendant No. 1 to pay the ground rent at the prevailing rate. The defendant declined to concede to the demand made by the plaintiffs and they filed L.P.A. No. 186/70. During the pendency of the L.P.A. the plaintiffs filed this suit on 5-2-1972 for recovery of the ground rent and other charges and Municipal taxes to the tune of Rs. 65,277 as reflected in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Custodian of the Enemy Property, Karachi has been impleaded as the defendant No. 2. The defendants have contested the suit. On pleading of parties, following issues have been settled for determination of the suit:

(1) What is the effect of the Judgment, dated 23-9-1970, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suit No. 99/of 1967 filed by defendant No. 1

(2) Whether defendant No. 1's possession over the plinth after the expiry of one year is unauthorised or they have become tenants month to month, if so, what is the effect

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover charges for the use and occupation or rent of the plinth after the expiry of one year period at the prevalent rent for the reasons stated in para. 14 of the plinth

(4) Whether the plaintiffs have accepted same payments in respect of the plinth for the period commencing from 14-12-1966 without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. If so, what is its effect

(5) What amount and/or relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to against defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have examined only one witness by name Mr. Shafaat Ali Khan, as Assistant in their office (Exh. EX/6). The defendants seem to have lost interest in the suit and they did not adduce evidence. Mr. Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocate for defendant No. 1 appeared on 22-1-1985, when the matter was set down for arguments, and made statement that he did not have instructions and he, therefore, preferred to remain absent. Defendant No. 2 has been represented by a Government Advocate, During the pendency of this suit, the L.P.A. filed by the defendant No. 1 was disposed of in November, 1979, whereby the Suit No. 99/67 filed by them was decreed and it was held that defendants were transferees of the sheds and the leasehold rights of the original lessees. As a consequences thereof, the plaintiffs have filed, through their Advocate, a statement, dated 19-4-1984 of their reduced claim calculated at Rs. 11,759. Almost all the issues in the suit, reproduced above, stand settled by virtue of the judgment in the L.P.A. No. 186/70, already referred to above. A photostat copy of certified copy of the Judgment thereof has been placed on the record. In the light of this Judgment, the plaintiffs have revised their claim to Rs.11,759, the break-up of which is given in the statement, dated 29-4-1984. It consists of charges for use and occupation of the plinth area at settled rate of Rs.2.50 per A Sq. Yard per annum for the period from 24-12-1966 to 31-1-1972, amounting to Rs.22,605; Municipal taxes Rs.4,166 lighting charges Rs.429 and S.P.F. charges Rs.12,251, all for totaling Rs.25,451. The plaintiffs have acknowledged receipt of payments made by the defendant No. 1 to the extent of Rs.27,692 and have claimed balance of Rs.11,759. No exception has been taken to this statement of account filed by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' suit is decreed for Rs.11,759 with proportionate costs of the suit as against the defendant No. 1. No relief has been sought against the defendant No. 2 and the suit is dismissed in respect of him with no order as to costs. A.A. Suit partly decreed.