' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---The plaintiff who is the sole proprietor of a firm carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs Haroon Brothers, has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs,80.003 million as damages against the respondent-Bank. It is alleged in the plain t that the plaintiff entered into a contract that Messrs Omni Polymers Company of United States of America for the purchase of Polypropylene Injection Grade and in this behalf a Letter of Intent dated 17-5-1993 was issued. Thereupon the plaintiff approached the respondent-Bank with the request to open a Letter of Credit in the sum of US $ 25,424.55 in favour of seller. The request was accepted for the opening of Letter of Credit. Apparently, subsequently, Letter of Intent was revised. As a consequence whereof, with the consent of the parties, the relevant amendments were also incorporated in the Letter of Credit dated 22-5-1993.
2. In terms of Letter of Credit the goods were described as follows:-- "H.S. Code No,39.02 Polymers of Propylene or of other Olefins, in Primary Forms, 39.02.1000 Polypropylene, Polypropylene Injection Grade...... "
' As per the case of the plaintiff the respondents received the complete shipping documents under covering schedule dated 20-8-1993 which, it is alleged, included a Bill of Lading dated 15-8-1993 the Commercial Invoice and packing list both of the said date. In the Bill of Lading referred to above the goods were described as follows:-- "1988 bags synthetic resin H.S. Code No,39.02 Polymers of Propylene or other Olefins, in primary forms 39.02.1000 Polypropylene, Polypropylene Injimction Grade...... "
3. It is also contended that Bill of Lading described the consignment as 1998 packages rather than by net weight. It is contended by the plaintiff that despite the aforesaid alleged discrepancy the defendant-Bank negotiated the L.C. On 27-8-1993. As a consequence whereof goods other than those contracted for have been supplied a fact which has been verified by two survey reports prepared in this behalf. And, therefore, the defendant-Bank has acted negligently and has violated the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits UCP-400 applicable to the transaction, especially as the shipping documents more particularly the Bill of Lading the term synthetic Resin had been added. In the above circumstances the plaintiff has raised a claim of Rs,80.003 million the break up whereof as mentioned in the plaint is as follows:-
1. Loss of Investment Rs.0.1 2.Cost of surveyors Rs.1.5 3.Demurrage Rs.2.5 4.Loss of profit/Business Rs.5.0 5.Loss of credibility Rs.20.0 6.Mental Pain/Agony Rs.50.0 7.Loss of a family member Rs.0.1 8.Expense of litigation Rs.80.003 Million
4. The defendant-Bank pursuant to a notice of this Court filed a petition for leave to defend the suit and this Court vide order dated 30-4-1997 granted such permission unconditionally. Subsequently a written statement was filed by the defendant-Bank. The allegations of the plaintiff were denied in the written statement. The maintainability of the suit was disputed. It was further contended that the defendant-Bank dealt only in documents under the UCP and there was no discrepancy in the documents inhibiting the negotiation of Letter of Credit. It was contended by the defendant-Bank that the description of the goods in the Letter of Credit and the Commercial Invoice was identical and under the UCP this is sufficient for negotiation of the Letter of Credit and the other documents including the Bill of Lading the goods may be described in general terms.
5. That upon the divergent pleadings of the parties vide order dated 11-11-1997 the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether the documents were not correctly negotiated by the defendant-Bank as per Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits (UCP-400)? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages as prayed for? OPP
(4) Relief.
6. In support of his claim the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, while the defendant-Bank produced Mr. Tariq Parvez as D.W.1 whose affidavit was filed and later cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to documents on the record and claims that the same were produced in evidence and exhibited. The said documents are on record marked as Exh.P.W.1 to P.W.24 but the said documents do not bear the signatures of the learned Judge hearing this case on that date. In the evidence recorded by the Court it is stated at the end of cross-examination of P.W.1.
"I produce the original documents of which photocopies have already been exhibited."
' It is disputed inter se the parties whether these documents form part of the evidence or not. The said documents primarily consist of Letter of Credit, Commercial Invoice, Bill of Lading and other shipping documents. The contents of the said documents are not disputed inter se the parties. The relevant portion thereof requiring examination by this Court have in fact been quoted in the plaint and not denied by the defendant-Bank. Both parties have freely referred to the documents during the course of arguments. There is a reference in the record of the case that the documents were exhibited by the plaintiff, therefore, it is safe to hold that all the said documents form part of the evidence on record.
8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.
' Issue No,2
9. The real matter in controversy between the parties on merits is embodied in Issue No,2, therefore, it is appropriate to deal therewith and adjudicate thereupon first. In pith and substance the case of the plaintiff is that there was a clear discrepancy in the description of the goods as set out in the Letter of Credit and the Bill of Lading. Therefore, the defendant-Bank could not or rather should not have negotiated the Letter of Credit. And under the UCP the defendant-Bank was duty bound to examine all documents stipulated in the Letter of Credit with reasonable care. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that such reasonable care was not taken as the documents in question more particularly the Bill of Lading was on the face of it inconsistent with the Letter of Credit. Hence, the defendant-Bank has been negligent. As a consequence where of the plaintiff had suffered the loss as claimed for which the defendant-Bank is liable.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that under UCP description of the goods in the Commercial Invoice alone must correspond with the description in the Letter of Credit. In all other documents the goods may be described' in general terms not inconsistent with the said description. Arid, it is contended, that there was no discrepancy or inconsistency in the said documents. Hence, the defendant-Bank has neither been negligent nor failed to perform any contractual or legal obligation.
11. It is common ground, between the parties and is also evident from the UCP that the description of the goods in the Commercial Invoice must strictly confirm to the description in the Letter of Credit. In all other documents the goods may be described in general terms not inconsistent with the said description. Furthermore, it is also evident and not disputed by the parties that the negotiating bank must examine all document by exercising reasonable care.
12. It is evident from the record and not disputed by the parties that the description of the goods in question in the Letter of Credit and the Commercial Invoice was identical. In the Bill of Lading also the identical description has been mentioned except it has been prefaced by the term "synthetic Resin". In the circumstances the defendant-Bank could only refuse to initiate the Letter of Credit in question if the description of goods in the Bill of Lading was inconsistent with the description mentioned in the Letter of Credit. The examination of the description in the documents in question reveals that the said description is in detail inclusive of the H.S. Code number which is identical in the said documents. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that mere prefacing the said specific detailed description with a general term of Synthetic Resin would make it inconsistent with the description in the Letter of Credit.
13. The plaintiff has based his claim, inter alia, on the report of the Surveyor which is on record as Exh.P.W.3. The said report obviously deals with the goods and not the documents.
14. Be that as it may, the finding of the said Surveyor is that allegedly the goods in question is, waste material containing Propylene Polymer which does not comply with the requirements of being Polypropylene, Injection Grade. It has been noticed that in a Letter of Credit the Commercial Invoice and the Bill of Lading the goods have been described as Injection Grade. Thus, it appears that grievance of the plaintiff is that the goods as supplied did not conform with the contract between the plaintiff and his supplier and were also not in accordance with the Bill of Lading and the Commercial Invoice. In fact the plaintiff did not object to the shipping documents initially and raised the issue regarding the goods after having examined the same. This aspect of the matter is also borne out by the statement of the plaintiff as P.W.1 wherein the witness has stated, inter alia, as follows:-- "It is true that it was only after having seen the consignment that we had informed the bank for the first time that the goods were not in accordance with the import papers."
' Thus, it is obvious that at best the grievance of the plaintiff is a breach of contract by the supplier who did not supply the goods as agreed and as described in the Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and the Letter of Credit. In view of the Autonomy Principle the Bank is not concerned with the underlining contract between the buyer and the seller and is not responsible for breach of any term thereof nor takes responsibility of the quality of the goods as it deals with documents and not the goods purported to be supplied under the Letter of Credit.
15. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has attempted to point out some other discrepancies in the documents. The said discrepancies have neither been pleaded in the plaint nor mentioned by the plaintiff in his statement recorded as P.W.1. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration or adjudicated upon.
16. In view of the above, it is clear and obvious that in the circumstances of the case the defendant-Bank has not acted negligently or failed to perform any duty or any obligation enjoined by law or the UCP. Therefore, Issue No,2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
' Issues Nos.1 and 3
17. In view of the findings on Issue No,2 it is not necessary to decide Issues Nos.1 and 3. However, suffice it to say that the claim raised by the plaintiff in the plaint does not entirely fall within the jurisdiction of this Court, more specifically the claim at Serial Nos.5 to 7 is obviously beyond the scope of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under the law applicable to the parties.
18. In view of the above, the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.