Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision Application No.269 of 1984, decided on 19th May, 1987.
---S.115-'-Carriage of goods by sea--Recovery of loss caused by short landing of goods--Respondent Insurance Company paying the amount of loss to importer and claiming same from petitioner shipping company--Petitioner, in correspondence, not denying claim but staring that after inquiry they would revert back on the subject to respondent--Respondent ultimately filing suit and on .its coming up for evidence, Court examining respondent's representative but nobody was examined on behalf of petitioner--Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit--No evidence found in -rebuttal to respondent's claim--Held, matter being of discretion of Judge Small Causes Court to grant adjournment or not, suit amount being very meagre (Rs.1,300) and suit to be disposed of through summary proceeding, there seemed to be nothing wrong with the impugned judgment--Petitioner not having opportunity to lead evidence, -decree, however, modified to extent that respondent shall be entitled to recover a total sum of decree inclusive of cost and interest up-to-date.--[Carriage of goods by sea].
Hassan Zafar for Applicant.
Zahid Tariq for Respondent..
Date of hearing: 19th May, 1987.
This Revision is directed against the judgment/decree dated 9-7-1984 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court at Karachi, in Suit No.304 of 1982.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that M/s. Mandviwalla Enterprises, Jodia Bazar, Karachi, imported 50 bales of Raw Rubber from Colombo. The said consignment was insured with the respondent. It seems that when the consignment was landed at Karachi on arrival of petitioner's ship, it was found that one bale of Raw Rubber was missing. The importer M/s. Mandviwalla Enterprises after obtaining short landing certificate Ex.P/17 from K.P.T. approached the respondent for payment of the loss. In response of which the respondent paid the amount to M/s. Mandviwalla Enterprises, namely, Rs.1,260/- under Ex.P/10 dated 16th January, 1982. After that respondent approached the petitioner by their letters dated 6th May, 1982 and 10th April, 1982 Exs.P/18 and P/19 requesting for the payment of Rs.1,136.25. The above letters were acknowledged by the petitioner by their letter dated 4-4-1982 Ex.P/20. The claim was not denied but it was stated that after enquiry they would revert back on the subject to the respondent. It seems that thereafter respondent filed the aforesaid suit. When the suit had come up for evidence, the respondent's representative was examined who produced the above documents, whereas nobody was examined on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Judge Small Causes Court by his above judgment dated 9-7-1984 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.1,300/-. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above judgment/decree has filed the present revision.
3(a). In support of the above revision Mr. S. Hassan Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge Small Causes Court has riot given fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case as an application for adjournment was moved on the ground that the counsel conducting the case was out of Pakistan but the above application was declined.
3(b). On the other hand Mr. Zahid Alvi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the junior counsel appearing for the petitioner was present in the Court and as the suit amount was very small, the learned Judge Small Causes Court proceeded with the case.
4. I have gone through the evidence and find that there is no evidence in rebuttal to respondent's claim. It was a matter of discretion of the learned Judge Small Causes Court either to grant adjournment or not to grant adjournment on the application filed by the Advocate for the petitioner. Admittedly the suit amount was very meagre and the suit was to be disposed of through summary proceedings. In my view, there seems to be nothing wrong with the judgment. However, since the petitioner did not have opportunity to lead the evidence, I would modify the decree to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.1,300/- inclusive cost and interest up- to-date.
S. Q. /P-29/ K Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer