Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Suit No. 652 of 1984, decided on 23rd January, 1986.
‑‑‑O.IX, R'.6‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Defendant remaining absent though served with summons‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Proof of averments in plaint‑ Recovery of amount‑‑Liability of defendant to pay claimed amount having been proved by affidavit and document recovery suit of plaintiff was decreed ex parte with costs in circumstances.
Muhammad Shaiq Usmani for Plaintiff.
Defendant (absent).
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1986.
To the various vessels which called at the port of Karachi under the agency of the defendant, various services including arranging of berths, movement of vessels were provided by the plaintiff. For the services thus rendered the plaintiff became entitled to be paid port dues and other charges by the defendant who though made part payments from time to time but failed and neglected to clear the outstanding in spite of repeated demands. The balance which has remained out standing against the defendant amounts to Rs.4,52,389.22 as detailed below:‑
| Sr. No. | | Nature of Bill | Amount |
| 1 | Kastro | Port Dues | Rs. 1,178.00 |
| 2 | Constanza | Port Dues/Water | Rs. 31,281.20 |
| 3 | Dynamics | " " | Rs. 48,351.00 |
| 4 | Captain Milos | " " | Rs.48,985.80 |
| 5 | Green Sky | " " | Rs.244,929.72 |
| 6 | Herms a Hellarra | " " | Rs. 77,663.50 |
| Total Rs. | 452,389.22 |
The claim made by the plaintiff is supported by documentary evidence and the averments made in the plaint on oath, which have remained unrebutted. The plaintiff has also filed affidavit in ex parte proof of one Mr. Rahis Taqi, who is Assistant in the Chief Account's Officer's Department.
The defendant has been called absent though served with the summons. The suit accordingly has proceeded against it ex parte as provided under Order IX, rule 6, C.P.C (as amended).
Being satisfied on the facts stated in the plaint, the affidavit) filed in ex parte proof and the documentary evidence produced, that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 4,52,389.22 to the plaintiff, the suit is decreed for the said amount as claimed in the suit with costs. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum. However, finding that the interest claimed is on the higher side, I direct that the defendant shall pay interest to the plaintiff on the decretal amount at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment.
H.B.T. Suit decreed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer