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 Miscellaneous Appeal in Suit No. 581 of 1985, decided on 9th March, 1986.
‑‑‑O.1, R.10‑‑Suit for recovery of wages against employer defendant and his shipping agent‑‑Shipping agent being not responsible for claim of wages making applications for rejection of plaint or in the alternative for extension of time for filing of written statement‑‑Plaint, held, could not be rejected in part but Court had power even suo motu to strike off name of any defendant if he had been wrongly impleaded or no cause of action had been shown against him‑‑Name of shipping agent of employer defendant was struck off from array of defendants in circumstances.
Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti for Plaintiff.
Usmani for Defendants.
Both the applications will be disposed of by this order. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of wages against the defendants. In the plaint it has been stated that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant No. 1 as Chief Engineer on terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment. He signed the articles and resumed his duty on M.V. 'Banglar Asha' on 10‑4‑1983 and remained on board the said vessel till 20‑4‑1983. Thereafter he went on leave and again joined duty on 1‑5‑1983. He was hospitalised and had been informing about his health and fitness to the defendant No. 2 by telex. The only allegation against defendant No.2 is that the plaintiff has been sending telexes and information to defendant No. 1 and 2 about his illness, treatment and fitness. There is no averment in the plaint about the relationship between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 except that in the title of the plaint defendant No. 2 has been described as agent of defendant No. 1. The claim in suit relates to the wages of the plaintiff. There is no allegations against the defendant No. 2 but prayer has been made that a decree be passed jointly or severally. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no cause of action made out against defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 as ship agent of the defendant No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the wages of the plaintiff. In these circumstances the defendant No. 2 has filed this application for rejection of the plaint and the other application is that if the plaint is not rejected then time for filing written statement may be extended. Mr. Bhatti states that the plaint cannot be rejected in part. It is true but the Court has power even suo motu to strike off the name of any defendant if it has wrongly been impleaded or no cause of action has been shown against him. This is a fit case in which the name of the defendant No. 2 should be struck off from the plaint. The Additional Registrar (O.S) shall strike off the name of the defendant No. 2 from the plaint with red ink. In the circumstances the application for extension of time for filing written statement has become infructuous and is dismissed.
A.A./M‑161/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