.. ;‘3 fc;20°9] N ational B an k o f P ak istan v.

K arachi Tank Terminal 1471

e of Claim XgM (Pvt) Ltd. (Sqfjad Alt Shah, J)
^an y defect iirfl
r a i a k e r s .m ay:li We therefore, hold th a t su it .should continue to proceed
L se-that claim ii;f| in th e adm iralty Jurisdiction of th is Court. We niay however
a in s t p e rso n s 'clarify th a t th e determ ination of ju risd ictio n a t tim es depends
p e rs o n s who , P upon determination* of ceklaln facts, w hich in tu rn are
" or personal I d ^ e rm in e d after evidence is add u ced in a case. Therefore, while
ts apparel or I finally deciding th e suit, it would b e open to th e trial C ourt to
section 3(2)(i) i also, decide th e question w h eth er on th e b asis of co n tract of
• A n ex am p le , p em ploym ent th a t w as executed b e ^ e e n th e appellants an d G
ran g e d trav el 3 J, resp o n d en t No. 1, th e appellants owed any d u ty of care to th e
b e s u e d for P resp o n d en t N o:i or th e n a tu re of th e claim s m ade a:gainst th e
:b e o w n e r of appellants is too rem ote tb m ake th em liable for dam ages? It
would b e open to th e trial C ourt-to decide th is question after
taking into consideration evidence th a t is recorded in th e suit.
' serving on The determ ination of th e above question m ay again throw open
th e q u estio n w h eth er th e ju ris a c tio n u n d e r clau se (fi of
em ployment subsection (2) of section 3 of th e A dm iralty Ju risd ictio n of High
It No. 1 and C ourts O rdinance, 1980 w as rightly invoked ag a in st th e
uties of the appellants. The trial C ourt shall therefore, b e a t liberty to fram e
sel Which is n ecessary issu es to ad d ress all th ese questions. We find no
■com panies lawful reaso n to .either reject the..plaint or tran sfer th e su it to
indent No. 1 l i e original side or drop th e appellant^ as p arty to th e suit.
^dependent
resp ondent 10. In view of th e above discussion, we are u n ab le to differ
m ploym ent from th e conclusions draw n by th e learned Single Ju d g e in the H
im pugned order. We therefore, dism iss th is appeal is limine. :
h e b a sis of
H .B .T ./A -62/K Appeal d ism issed r
^es against
claim fori
ind on th e F
addition to I 2009 C L D 1471
Jad agent : [K arachi]
No. 1 was
e question Before SqUad Ali Shoh, J
^ e n t, , the' .
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN— Plaintiff • ■
ippellants
be parties v ersu s
rial of the
an; th a t it - M essrs KARACHI TANK TERMINAL (PVT.) LTD.
re. if th e -; . an d 4 o th ers— D efendants
sep arate S u it Nov969 of 2000^an d C.M. .As. N os.2268 of 2008, 1905 of
;d; in th e 2009, decided on 15th May, 2009.
d on th e
•ty of the B a h k ifig C o m p a n ie s (R ecovery o f L o a n s, A d v an ces, C re d its
a n d I ^ n a n c e s ) D r d in g n c e f (XXV o f 1 9 9 7 )--
— S.7~-Civi). Procedure Code (V o f 1908)f OJI, R.2—Suit fo r

CLD
1472 CORPORATE LAW D ECISIO N S [Vol. VII 2 009] NatU

recovery o f Xo(m"~Cause o f gctton in the previously insU tuted-suit \ m aking alt(

f o r w hich the plaintiff held a decree a n d the. p re se n t su it his req u est
ap p e ared to be the one arid the sarne a n d the plaintiff could not no one h a s
competently fUe tux> se p a ra te su its by splitting- up his claim a n d Mr.
th a t too w ithout disclosing the f a c t o f having earlier obtained h a s dbnteri
money d e c re e on sarne ca u se or advancing an y re a so h f o r filing M essrs Kaj
se p a ra te su it a n d th a t also w ith o u t perm ission o f the court— ' credit beari
E xplanation to sub-rule (3) o f R.2 o f O.II, C.RC. m ade it clear th at | | The repayi
successive b reach o f one obligation would b e d eem ed to give rise.’ g u aran tees
to one c a u se o f action and, in the p re se n t case, non-paym ent of
the fin a n c e facility w as one ca u se o f action entitling the plaintiff ta n k ers ol
to various reliefs a n d since the plaintiff h ad om itted to su e f o r u n d ertak er
one of the reliefs, therefore, w as not entitled to su e on. the b asis of th e sai(
of relief so omitted---Suit consequently w as d ism issed being plaintiff. T1
barred by O.U, R 2, C.RC.---Principles. [pp. 1475, 1476] A, B, C, D & E u n d e r se c t
A bdul H akim an d 2 o th ers v. S aad u llah K han an d 2 Advances,
o thers PLD 1970 SC 63; M uham m ad Khalil K han an d o th ers v. of Rs. 122,i
Mehboob All M ian an d o th e rs: an d A bdul Ghafoor V. S ettlem ent and its Dir
an d R ehabilitation Com m issioner K arachi 1971 SCMR 602 by filing
joining the
ref. 5-11-1995
Nemo for Plaintiff. ; of said twc
decree anc
S haiq U sm ani for D efendant Np.5. sale* of moi
ORDER Ltd., an d o
directors/^
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J . —T hrough th is application
d efen d an t No. 5 seeks rejection of th e p lain t on th e ground th a t Per
th e claim in th e in s ta n t s u it is n o t only ban-ed u n d e r O rder II, is n o t only
ru le 2, C .P .C ./lim itation b u t also h it by th e principles of res principles
ju d icata. w as lastly
order w he
The record reflects th a t even prior t o ‘filing o f listed by defends
application th is C ourt vide orders dated 12-12-2005. and be recalle
19-12-2006 h a d m ade certain observations questioning th e term inals
m aintainability of in s ta n t s u it on sirhilar ground. On 8-4-2009 bearing N(
an d 28-4-2009 counsel for th e plaintiff so u g h t tim e .to address Court.
th e C ourt regarding ■maintainability of th e in s ta n t su it an d at
h is re q u e st m a tte r w as adjourned to 30-4-2009 to b e ta k en up :; ■.'y.'-f 1
a t 8.30 a.m . However, on th a t date th e C ourt w as inform ed th a t; record tho
th e counsel for th e plaintiff h a s left th e cou n try an d w ould b e | ’ - . It .
available som ew here in th e m iddle of A ugust, 2009. The Ws plaintiff £
req u est w as vehem ently opposed an d th e m a tte r w as posted to / (defendam
5-5-2009 w ith th e notice to th e plaintiff to m ake alternate the b asis *
arran g en ien ts in case counsel is n o t available. On 5-5-2009 had ackn
representative of th e plaintiff appeared an d so u g h t tim e for oil
CID
CLD
 m-
■■ . . ' J
'Mi'
[Vol. v i i 12009] N ational B an k o f P ak istan v. K arachi T ank Terminal 1473
■ :m |l ■ . (Pvt) Ltd. (Sqjjad Ali Shah, J)'
■ ■ ' " :M
ilmaking altern ate arran g em en t an d consequently th e m a tte r a t
^U tuted.sui0\
present \suiim J h is req u est w as adjourned for today. Today despite several calls
iino one h a s app eared frorn th e side of th e plaintiff.
is claim and IP Mr. S h aiq U sm aiii learned counsel for d efendant No. 5
ier obtained \ I h as c o n f i d e d th a t plaintiff h ad advanced fin to ce facility to
>oh f o r filing -J M e s s r s K arach i Ghee- Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., ■ag ain st-tw o letters of
the court-: 3 credit b earin g Nos. 1624 an d 1629 for im port of RBD Palm Oil.
it clear that The rep ay m en t of th e said finance facility beside personal
■■to give rise. i g u aran tees an d m ortgage w as secu red th ro u g h a letter of
■poyrnent cf i hypothecation creating charge on th e palm oil stored in the
the pidintiff' ta n k ers of d efendant N o .l an d th e d efendant N o.l h ad
i to su e fo r u n d e rta k e n vide its letter dated 5-11-1.995 n o t to effect delivery
>n the basis of th e said palm oil w ith o u t delivery orders issu ed by th e
s s e d being i plaintiff. T he-plaiiitiff th e re after initiated recovery proceedings
B. C . D & E ’I u n d e r section 7 of th e B anking Com panies (Recovery of Loans ,
M Advances, C redits an d Fiiiances) O rdinance, 1997 for recovery
tian a n d 2
•d o th e rs v; ■of Rs. 122,855,717.05 ag ain st M essrs K arachi Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd.,
a n d its D irectors w ho are also th e D irectors of d efendant N o.l
S e ttle m e n t .-.r^ tel* «
3CMR 602 by filing S u it No. 505 of 1997 before th is C ourt w ith o u t
joining th e d efen d an t N o.l or enforcing th e u n d e rta k in g dated
5-11-1995 th o u g h th e claim of th e plaintiff w as only in resp ect
of said two letters of credit. The plaintiff ,th ereafter obtained a
decree an d filed E xecution A pplication No.61 of 1998 for th e
s a l^ of m ortgaged properties of M essrs K arachi Ghee Mills (Pvt.)
Ltd., an d or its D irectors an d for th e balance so u g h t a rre st of its

Lpplicatibn
ound th at Per Mr. U sm ani in view of th is position th e in s ta n t su it
r O rder II, is n o t only b arred by law of lim itation bu t. also b arred Under th e
»les of res principles of res ju d ic a ta as well as O rder ll. rule 2, C.P.C. It
w as lastly contended th a t even if th e .su it is n o t dism issed th e
order w hereby th e oil in stallatio n s/term in al previously owned
o f listed by d efen d an t N o.l w ere attach ed in th e in sta n t s u it is liable to
2Q05. arid b e recalled a s d efen d an t No. 5 h a s p u rch ased th e said oil
)n in g th e term in als bonafidely w ith o u t notice in execution proceedings
8 -4 -2 0 0 9 bearing No.21 o f 2001 pending ag ain st defendant N o.l in this
3 a d d re s s C ourt. ■'
[it a n d a t
ta k e r! u p ,i*|| f have, h e a rd learn ed .counsel an d have p eru sed the
m ed th a t record thoroughly.
w o u ld b e 4 ■ : It ap p ears th a t th e In stan t su it h a s been filed by th e
)Q9. The plaintiff ag ain st M essrs K arachi T ank, Term inal (Pvt.) Ltd.
p o ste d to / (defendant N o.l) a n d its D irectors (defendants Nos.2 to 4) on
th e b asis of letter d ated 5-11-1995. w hereby th e defendant No^l
5 -5 -2 0 0 9 h ad acknow ledged th e storage of two consignm ents oi KbJJ
tim e for palm oil having total quantity of 3967.558 m .t. im ported
•' CU>
V'ii
 •■■■-m

1474* CORPORATE LAW d e c is io n s : iVoL VII v" 2009] Nationcd

th ro u g h letters of credit N os.001624 an d 001629 a n d ; successi

u n d erto o k n p t to effect delivery w ith o u t d u ty paid bill of en try sh all be
W:'- of action
accom panied by valid delivery order issu ed by th e plaintiff-B ank
an d now th e plaintiff is claim ing a decree directing d efendant A m in u t
N o.l to release 4000 M.T. of palm oil or to pay a su m of US$ cases w here a li
2895894.78 in lieu thereof. , basis of sam e c
The record reflects th a t upori non-paym ent of flriance . reliefs in one s
facility in resp ect of th e aforesaid two letter of credits plaintiff >perm itted by th
h a d filed'before th is C ourt recovery S u it No.505 of 1997 ag ain st j|,' omitted.; Applyii
th e irnporter Com pany an d its D irecto r/G u aran to rs, for reflect th a t the
recovery of th e am o u n t advanced ag ain st RBD Palm Oil, an d in money on accoi
p ara. 10 of th e plaint, h a d asserted th a t th e cargo/RBD Palm Oil iwhich th e pla
in resp e ct of th e said two letter of credits w as stored in th e properties, m on
b o u n d ed w areh o u se a n d oil storage ta n k by th e n am e of M essrs : ;decree ag a in st t
K arachi T an k T erm inal (Pvt.) Ltd. (defendant N o.l) owned by } iOil or m oney i
defendants N os.2 an d 3 (who are com m on in S u it No.505 of si,^ready holds m
1997 an d th is suit) an d obtained a m oney/m ortgage decree in Vtthe b asis of Si
th e su m of Rs. 106,875,361.30 w ith m ark -u p a t th e ra te of 16% omitted to sue
from th e date of su it till recovery a n d to enforce su c h decree jo in/claim one
obligation for v
h ad filed E xecution No.61 of 1996. •
explanation of
After obtaining m oney/m ortgage decree-for th e price of ,:j Such collateral: 5
RBD Palm Oil ag ain st th e im porter Co., a n d its D irectors th e 5I same; obligation
plaintiff h a s again filed th is s u it an d th is tim e ag a in st th e ^ [co n stitu te s one
ta n k e r com pany w ith w hom oil w as stored seeking delivery of oil to the case of Abdi
or m oney ill lieu thereof. In sh o rt plaintiff is asking for a second l-others PLD 197C
m oney decree for th e sam e oil. As to th e cau se of action it is
a sse rte d in p a ra .8 of th e p lain t th a t the, plaintiff h a s been “The exp
m C.P.C. ir
asking th e d efen d an t for th e delivery of th e stored palm oil
(w ithout giving th e date off dem and) a n d th e defendants h av e brought,
failed/avoided to deliver. su its m a
facts wh
Taking u p th e first plea a s to w h eth er in th e claim ed
circum stances th e in s ta n t s u it is b arred u n d er O rder II, ru le 2, infringen
e.P.C . it w ould be beneficial to reproduce sub-R ule (3) of rule 2 com plain
of O rder II, C.P.C. along w ith its explanation w hich read s as su b sta n c
follows:— ' - -.j th e appli
. ■ ■ ■ . ' , ' ■ •• ‘$ allegatior
“O m ission to su e for one of several reliefs.—(3) A person defence t
entitled to m ore th a n one relief in resp ect of th e sam e i down.- by
cause of action m ay su e for all or any of su c h reliefs; b u t J M uhalmn
if h e omits, except w ith th e leave of th e Court, to su e for o thers (]
all su c h reliefs, h e sh a ll.p o t ^ e r w a r ^ 3 su e for an y relief! to th e gi
so om itted. action o r:
E xplanation. For th e p u rp o ses of th is ru le a n obligation? plaintiff £
an d a collateral security for its perform ance and! favour”. /

CLD
 [Vol.'VIl N ational B an k o f P ak istan v. K arachi T ank Terminal 1475
•o* (Pvt) Lid. (SqjjadA li Shah, J)
001629 and successive claim s arising u n d e r th e sam e obligation
id bill of ent^j sh all be deem ed respectively to constitute b u t one cau se
plaintiff-Bankt of action.”
ting defendant!
1- A m in u te p eru sal of th e aforesaid Rule reflects th a t in
a su m of y s $ |i
leases w here a litigant is entitled to m ore th a n one reliefs on th e
'’n ifsl ibasis of sam e ca u se of action th e n h e is b o u n d to join all the
2.nt o f fin an ce;| | Reliefs in one s u it an d th e om ission to jo in any relief u n less
re d its p la ln tffi| Ijperrnltted by th e C ourt disentitles him to su e for th e relief so
F1997 against l] Jbrhltted. Applying th e aforesaid te s t to th e case in h a n d would
aran to rs, for | jreflect th a t th e cau se of action ap p ears to be n o n ;ipaym ent of
Im Oil, and in Ifinoney on acco u n t of aforesaid letter of credits a n d th e reliefs
RBD Palm Oil » h i c h th e plaintiffs could seek were sale of m ortgaged
stored in the ^properties, m oney decree ag ain st th e g u aran to rs an d probably a
im e of Messrs Wdecree ag ain st th e p re se n t defendants for deliveiy of RBD Palm
1) owned by I Oil or m oney in lieu th ereo f (against two of th em plaintiff
ult No.505 of ij already holds m oney decree in th e previously in stitu te d s u it on
;age decree in p t h e b asis of sam e cause). In o th er w ords th e plaintiff h a s
e rate of 16% omitted to su e for a collateral security an d or failed to
; su c h decree llJo in /c la im one of th e relief available on th e b asis of sam e
^ o b lig a tio n for w h ic h ; plaintiff h a s obtained a decree an d per
P ex p la n a tio n of sub-R ule (3). it can safely be concluded th a t
r th e price of | j su ch collateral secu rity w as to secure th e repaym ent u n d e r th e
D irectors the Ij sam e obligation for w hich th e plaintiffs hold a decree an d
: ag a in st the If co n stitu tes one ca u se of. action- a s defined by th e apex C o u rt in
deliveiy of oil l ^the case of A bdul H akim an d 2 o th ers v. S aad u llah K han a n d 2
; for a second to o th e rs PLD 197a SC 63 by h o ld in g :-
if action it is
iff h a s been “The expression “ca u se of action” in O rder II, ru le 2,
red palm oil C.P.C. m ean s th e ca u se of action for w hich a s u it is
:ndants Jiave b rought. In order that- th e cau se of action for th e two
su its m ay be th e sam e it is n ecessary n o t only th a t the
facts w hich vrould entitle th e plaintiff to th e right
h e r in the claim ed m u s t b e th e sam e b u t, also th a t th e
ler II, ru le 2, infringem ent' of h is rig h t a t th e h a n d s of th e defendants B
• (3) of rule 2 coihplained ag ain st in th e two su its, m u s t have arisen in
Ich read s as su b stan ce, o u t of th e sam e tran sactio n . In considering
th e application of th is b ar, regard is to be h a d to th e
(3) A person allegations in th e two su its w ith o u t reference to th e
of th e sam e defence t h a t m ay b e s e t u p by th e defendants. As laid
down,- -b y th e ir L ordships of th e Privy Council in
ti reliefs;, b u t
rt, to su e for M uham m ad K han a n d o th ers v. M ehboob Ali M ian an d
o th ers (1) “th e b a r u n d e r O rd er II, rule 2 refers entirely
for an y relief'
to th e g ro u n d s s e t o u t in th e p la in t a s th e ca u se of
a c tio n or, in o th e r w ords, to th e m edia u p o n w hich th e
n obligation plaintiff a s k s th e C ourt to arrive a t a wconclusion in h is
m ance an d favour”. A ro u g h test, although n o t a conclusive one is to
■. ; ,*51 CLD .
 ; [VOI. VII 2009 ]
1476 CORPORATE LAW D ECISIO N S

C o n tra c t Act
s e e w h e t h e r t h e s a m e e v id e n c e w ill s u s t a i n b o t h s u i t s
w h i c h w o u ld b e t h e c a s e i f b o t h t h e s u i t s a r e f o u n d e d
o n c o n t i n u o u s aitd i n s e p a r a b l e i n c i d e n t s i n t h e s a m e
---Ss.126, 13
any direction
tr a n s a c tio n .” \ am ount frpn
L ik e w is e ' i n t h e c a s e o f A b d u l G h a f o o r v . S e t t l e m e n t a n d p ara rrp u n t d
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n G o m m is s i o n e r K a r a c h i 1 9 7 1 S C M R 6 0 2 i t w a s could be deti
h e l d b y t h e H o n o u r a b l e S u p r e m e C o u r t t h a t l i t i g a n t i-s n o t p re se n t case,
a llo w e d t o s p l i t u p h i s g r o u n d s t o s e e k , r e lie f i n r e s p e c t o f t h e D,i the am ount,
s a m e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a n d m a k e d if f e r e n t p e t i t i o n s a t d if f e r e n t d efendant—
during the i
tim es. ■ direction or c
After exam ining th e case of th e plaintiff on aforesaid from the dej
principles, th ere is no d o u b t in my m ind according to
action in tiie previously in stitu te d s u it for w hich th e plaintiff to p a y on be
holds a decree an d th e in starit s u it ap p ears to be th e one ^ d . arose only u
th e sam e a n d th e plaintiff could n o t com petentiy-file two directed to n
se p arate su its by splitting u p h is claim an d th a t too w ithout w as directec
disclosing th e fact of having earlier obtained m oney decree on ^ d efen d an t u
sam e cau se or advancing any reaso n for f ilin ^ e p a r a te s m t a n w hich w as
th a t too w ith o u t perm ission from th e Court; The explanation to neither bind
su b -ru le (3) of Rule 2 of O rder II, C.P.C. m akes it ab u n d a n tly [pp. 1478, U
clear th a t successive b reac h of one obligation w ould b e deemed
to give rise to one ca u se of action a n d in th e In sta n t case ^non­ Pary;
pay m en t of th e finance facility w as one cau se of action entitling N arayan Ra
th e plaintiff to various reliefs an d since th e plaintiff h a s omitted an o th er AIR
to su e for one of th e relief therefore, is n o t entitled to su e on the Assignee All
b a sis of relief so om itted. 'The su it consequently is .dismissed
being b arred u n d e r O rder II, Rule 2, C.P:G. U pon dism issal of Sh. T
th e s u it application listed a t Sr; No. 1 h a s becom e infructuous
a n d t h e r e f o r e is d i s m i s s e d . ■ Ch. ]
A pplication dism issed! Date
M .B A ./N -3 5 /K

2009 C L D . 1476
: SYE
[Lahore] su it for. rec(
, 26-4-2002
Before S yed H am id AH Shah, J C<
Mst, FAYYAZI BEGUM an d 6 o th ers—A ppellants
7-5-2005. 1
v ersu s su it w as d
Learned Co
. -ALI HASSAN an d an o th er— R espondents . Vhouse of t]
1 No.274 Bio
F.A.O. No.215 of 2007, decided on 13th May, 2009.
CLD
.CLD