1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of damages on account of his wrongful dismissal from service. The plaintiff has pleaded that he joined defendant as an officer in 1973 and was posted at Bahrain in 1979 as an Officer Incharge. Investment Department, and in 1981 promoted as Senior Banker/Assistant Vice-President, Foreign Exchange Branch and Money Market. Bahrain. In 1987 the plaintiff was promoted as Vice-President. In 1990 the plaintiff was posted as Vice President. Chief Dealer and Manager Habib Bank, I.B.F. New York, USA, where he started Treasury Operation in International Banking Facilities Zone of New York and setup dealing room, served inter bank credit loans exceeding U.S. $ 500 Million. The plaintiff's duties included buying and selling international currencies for the bank anticipating the future terms of the currencies against US Dollar to earn profit for the bank. The plaintiff pleaded that all the activities were to be personally monitored, supervised and directed by the General Manager Mr. Asif, J. Shah.
2. The plaintiff was suspended vide Suspension Order dated April 29, 1991 and thereafter, transferred to Karachi vide transfer order dated 4th June.
3. 1991. The plaintiff was served with a show-cause notice dated 4th August; 1991. Which was replied by the plaintiff on 30th August, 1991 and was dismissed from the service on 3rd October, 1991. The plaintiff filed appeal on 15th October, 1991, which was rejected on 5th January, 1992. The plaintiff filed Second Appeal on 19th April, 1992 which was also rejected on 5th July, 1992. The plaintiff claimed damages on account of present and future economic loss and on account of irreversible phase of perpetual mental agony, physical stress, strain and social persecution. The plaintiff claimed that he suffers severe mental depression. Pangs of miseries and it was not enough, he is unemployed and in this era of deep-rooted recession there is no likelihood of getting suitable job in the near future. The plaintiff claimed that the dismissal order is general, vague, sweeping in nature and has been passed without any application of mind, and is arbitrarily, mala fide, discriminatory in nature, and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. He further claimed that the dismissal is in violation of the Islamic Injunction and the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims Rs,20 million as damages, Rs,12,50,000 on account of Foreign Earned Leave, withheld foreign salary, and allowances, outstanding TA and DA, 45 days' hotel expenses in New York and further sum of Rs,7,50,000 pertaining to accumulated provident fund balance, cash securities., local earned leave.
4. ' The defendant has contested the matter by filing written statement. In the written statement it was stated that suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is governed by common law of Master and Servant and there is no triable issue. The plaintiff has deliberately caused loss to the defendant and made gain in US Dollars about 17 millions. It was not denied that the plaintiff joined the defendant in 1973 and was posted at Bahrain in 1997 and was promoted as Assistant Vice-President in 1984 and Vice-President in 1988 and was posted as Assistant Vice-President, New York on 6-3-1990. The defendant denied that the plaintiff set up the dealing room in accordance with the instructions of the head officer and alleged that plaintiff failed to set up the dealing room as per Organization chart and deliberately kept hiding the foreign exchange losses and indulge in falsification of records. It was admitted that plaintiff was recalled at Karachi, issuance of show cause-notices was not denied, so also the dismissal of the plaintiff from service, was also not denied. Filing of Appeals and rejection of appeals were also not denied. It was submitted in the written statement that an enquiry was conducted and if was further submitted that it is open to the competent authority to dispense with another further enquiry. The defendants in further pleas made allegations against the plaintiff for not following the guideline given by the head office, voluminous and speculative trading against the head office policy. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed the information from the head office and action against Mr. M. Asif J. Shah was also proceeded. The plaintiff trade beyond his authority and caused loss of over US$ 17 Million and also falsified the record. The Enquiry Report was placed before the Board of Directors which, was duly considered and examined and no further enquiry was considered necessary.
5. ' From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-- I. Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff was wrongful?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover damages? If yes then how much?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed in paras. B & C of the prayer clause?
4. What should be the relief/decree?
6. ' In support of his case the plaintiff examined himself and produced documents from Exh. 5/1 To Exh.
7. 5/12. On behalf of defendant Mr. Qamar Ali Shaikh was examined. No documents were produced in spite of the undertaking of the witness during cross-examination.
8. ISSUE No,1 ' The plaintiff has challenged his dismissal order dated 3rd October, 1991 describing it as arbitrarily mala fide, discriminatory, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, in violation of the Islamic Injunctions and principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. In his affidavit in evidence the plaintiff submits that he was suspended on 29- 4-1991 and transferred to Karachi on 4-6-1991 and a Show-Cause Notice was served on 4-8-1991 which was replied on 30-8-1991. In his affidavit in evidence the plaintiff with regard to his dismissal submits as under:- "That my dismissal order is general, vague, sweeping in nature and has been passed without any application of mind whatsoever and the said order is arbitrarily mala fide, discriminatory in nature, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution."
9. ' The relevant portion of the cross-examination of the plaintiff in this regard reads as under:-- "It is correct to suggest that I have been charg-sheeted for misconduct. I see Exh. 5/5 and say it is the charge-sheet which was served upon me. I was suspended prior to service of charge-sheet Exh. 5/5. I have submitted my reply of the charge-sheet. It is incorrect to suggest that any inquiry was conducted in pursuance of charge-sheet. Facts Finding Committee was constituted prior to service of charge-sheet and the said committee investigated the matter and recorded the statements including my statement. I see Exh. 5/7 and I say that by this letter I have been dismissed from service."
10. ' The plaintiff submits that dismissal without proper enquiry and without giving proper opportunity of hearing is illegal and not maintainable under law. He further submits that dismissal order was passed without application of mind. He further submits that his challenge to dismissal order in his affidavit in evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
11. ' That plaintiff relied upon the following reported cases in support of his case:--
(1) P.I.A. v. Shaista Naheed 2004 SCMR 316=2004 PLC (C.S) 344.
(2) Abdul Qayoom v. D.G. Project Management Organization 2003 PLC (C.S.) 353.
(3) PIA v. Nasir Jamal Malik 2001 SCMR 934.
(4) Muhammad Saleem v. ADBP 2003 PLC (C.S.) 36.
(5) Engineer Naraindas v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 82.
(6) Abdul Rehan Zulfiqar v. Secretary Education Govt. Of Punjab 2004 PLC (C.S.) 524.
12. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Tasnim learned Advocate for the defendant submits that the dismissal order was passed strictly in accordance with the Service Rules and the competent authority was vested with the powers to dispense with the enquiry. He further submits that as no question of fact is involved enquiry is not necessary. He referred to Proviso of Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules 1981 which read as under: "Provided that in the light of the facts of the case the requirements of sub-rules (1), (2) & (3) may be dispensed with by the competent authority and it will be just and proper for the competent authority to take an explanation of the employee and award punishment forth with."
13. ' Mr. Muhammad Tasnim referred to paras. 8 and 20 of his affidavit in evidence and states that the same has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and amount to admission. The said paras. Referred by the learned counsel are reproduced below:-- "8. I say that the plaintiff was put under suspension and after thorough enquiry proceedings and material collected by the Inquiry Committee including the explanation of the plaintiff was placed before the competent authority who, after examination of the same, found that the explanation of the plaintiff is neither plausible nor satisfactory hence in exercise of powers vested in it in terms of proviso to rule 39 sub-rule (3) of Habib Bank Limited Staff Service Rules, 1981 dispensed with the requirement of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981."
14. "20. I say that the enquiry report placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting which was duly considered and examined. In the circumstances no further inquiry was considered necessary as the report was made on all aspects of the case after due hearing to all the parties and after examining all the record and hearing all the witnesses produced. The principles of natural justice were duly complied with and no further enquiry was called for, hence the dismissal order was passed."
15. ' Mr. Muhammad Tasnim relied upon the following reported cases:--
(1) Mrs. M.N. Arshad v. Miss Naeema Khan PLD 1990 SC 612.
(2) Anisa Rehman v. PIA 1994 SCMR 2232.
(3) Habib Bank Ltd. v. S. Ziaul Hasan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60.
(4) United Bank Ltd., v. S. Ahsan Akhtar 1998 SCMR 68.
(5) Principal Cadet College Kohat v. M. Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170.
(6) Anwar Hussain v. ADBP PLD 1984 SC 194.
16. ' I have considered the cross-examination of the witness of the defendant the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "On having notice of the fact that statement of New York Branch and amount transferred to treasury operations were not tallying, the defendant-bank became conscious and started investigation into the matter and thereafter an inquiry committee was sent to New York to probe into the matter and after probing into the matter, the said committee submitted the report. I cannot produce any document in support of my statement I have made in Court today. I cannot say that the plaintiff has informed the defendant-bank about the excess over limit positions and of the position gone bad. I cannot say that the General Manager has informed the defendant-bank about the over limit. I can produce the inquiry report and I undertake to produce the same on or before the next date of hearing."
17. ' To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties I have gone through the Show-Cause Notice dated August 4, 1991 (Exh.
18. 5.6). On perusal of notice the allegations levelled against the plaintiff are summarized as under:--
(a) Violated the head office guidelines/limits.
(b) Foreign currency open positions were kept constantly far excess of intra day or over night limits set by head office.
(c) Concealment of factual position and loss from head office.
(d) Generating irregular accounting entries in BPAR and Nostro Accounts.
(e) Pages from the ledger were deliberately removed and rewritten.
(f) Unauthorized massive trading violating Head Office guidelines and causing financial loss of 17.00 million to bank as well as bank's image was tarnished.
19. ' In the last para. Of the Show-Cause Notice the plaintiff was show caused on the following charges:-
(a) Breach of trust reposed on you by its bank.
(b) Causing wilful loss to the bank.
(c) Concealment of facts.
(d) Breach of Rules and Regulations of the Bank.
(e) Gross negligence in performance of duties.
20. ' The plaintiff has replied the Show-Cause Notice on 30-8-1991 (Exb.5/7). In his reply the plaintiff stated that he never committed any misconduct and never breached the trust placed on him by the bank. He further submits that he never caused any wilful loss nor was negligent and never concealed any facts from the bank and had not violated the bank regulations. He submits that he was authorized and ordered by the New York General Manager to deal in the amount specified and had never exercised independent authority. He alleged that even during leave the General Manager New York personally monitored the positions from Pakistan. He also challenged the enquiry conducted by Mr. Muhammad Ahmed by saying that his enquiry was biased and was invalid enquiry as Mr Ahmed enjoyed the hospitalities of Mr. Pir Tariq who takes care of him. He further submits that there were no approved feasibility report from Head Office and he cannot be held responsible for not complying with an unapproved report. In the end the plaintiff requests for a full and complete hearing. The plaintiff was dismissed from service on October 3. 1991 (Exh.5/8) without enquiry. The dismissal order reads as under:-- Charge-Sheet No,SIH/59 Dated 4-8-1991 and Your Explanation Thereto Dated 30th Aug.
21. 1991.
22. "Your explanation to the Charge-Sheet as referred to above has been duly considered and it has been found that the same is neither plausible nor satisfactory.
23. Hence in exercise of power vested in it in terms of proviso to Rule 39 (3) of HBL Staff Service Rules, 1981, the competent authority has dispensed with the requirements of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 39 and has decided to dismiss you from service under the rules with immediate effect.
24. ' The management further reserves its right to take punitive action/civil action if found necessary in case of your involvement in any matter disclosing criminal offence or acting against the interest of the Bank.
25. ' Your legal dues, if any, are being worked out and you will be informed in due course of time."
26. ' From the perusal of Exh.5/8 it is clear that the plaintiff was dismissed without any enquiry and the plaintiff was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself. From the Show-Cause Notice and the reply it is evident that the charges levelled against the plaintiff were factual and controversial in nature and regular inquiry is must. The holding of regular enquiry is a rule and dispense with the regular inquiry is an exception. The enquiry can be dispensed with in terms of HBL Service Rules 1981 by assigning cogent reasons. The dismissal order clearly shows that the requirement of inquiry was dispensed with, without application of mind and without assigning any reason. By not assigning the reasons the competent authority has violated the provisions of Clause 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. From the reading of the show-cause notice and its reply (Exh.5/6 and 5/7) it is clear that facts in this case regarding alleged misconduct of the plaintiff was controversial and to resolve the controversy regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with. The plaintiff was also not provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself and no personal hearing was also provided to the plaintiff before passing the dismissal order. The dismissal from service in summary manner was in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. In the case of PIA v. Nasir Javed Malik the Supreme Court has held that the employer who itself has framed the rules for its domestic purpose is bound to strictly follow the same. In the case of PIA v. Shaista Naheed it was held that it is now well-settled principle of law that in case of awarding major penalty a proper inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law wherein full opportunity of defence is to be provided. In Abdul Qayoom v. V.D.G. Project Management Organization 2003 PLC (C.S.) 353 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases of misconduct, without an explicit order of dispensation of the requirement of regular inquiry the departure from the normal rules was not legal. The other point which required consideration is that in the affidavit in evidence and in his cross-examination the witness of the bank deposed about inquiry report and placing the same before the Board of Directors of the Bank.
27. Neither the inquiry report nor the minutes of the meting were placed on the Court record. The witness during his cross-examination undertook to produce the same but the same was not produced. The reason appears to be either there is no such inquiry report or minutes of the meeting or that the documents will go against the defence taken by the defendant. Non- production of material documents is fatal to the case of the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed discrimination. From the evidence it is proved that General Manager New York was also dismissed but his appeal was accepted and he was allowed to resign. The simila treatment was not given to the plaintiff, which was not proper and amounts to discrimination. In Syed Aziz ul Hasan v. Director Special Education Punjab (2003 PLC (C.S.) 36) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bank while adopting the policy of pick and choose, proceeded only against the Subordinate Officials in departure to the rule of fair play and equal treatment in the matter of fixing the responsibility of all concerned. In Engineer Naraindas v. Federation of Pakistan (2002 SCMR 82) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concerned quarters can ill-afford to meet out different treatment to two groups of its employees and that too when the dictates of law, justice and equity require exercise of power by all concerned to advance the course of justice and not to thwart the same. In this case the defendant has not acted fairly by rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff and accepting the appeal of General Manager New York and by doing so the bank has thwarted the cause of justice.
28. ' The cases cited by Mr. Tasnim are not directly applicable to the facts of the case. In first case it was held that violation of non-statuary rules could not be assailed through a constitution petition.
29. In the second case it was held that in absence of statuary service rules the relationship between Statuary Corporation and its employees was that of master and servant. In the third case it was held that employee of corporation in absence of violation of law or any statuary rule could not press into service constitutional jurisdiction for seeking relief of re-instatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages. In the fourth case it was held that in the case of master and servant remedy of wrongful termination of service of an employee was a suit for damages and not relief for re-instatement. In the fifth case it was held that in case of termination of service writ petition is not competent unless violation of any provision of statute or of a statuary rule was shown. In the last case it was held that employees of corporation could not claim to be possessed of any legal character within meaning of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and in case of wrongful dismissal from or termination of service, principle of master and servant will fully apply and, he can only claim damages but not reinstatement to his post.
30. ' In view of above I hold that dismissal of the plaintiff from service without affording him proper hearing was violative of principle of natural justice and the plaintiff was wrongly dismissed.
31. ' Issue No,2.
32. ' The Plaintiff submits that he was wrongly dismissed from service and sustained financial losses as well as mental torture. He referred to para. 52 of his affidavit in evidence and submits that the defendant fails to rebut the same and this piece of evidence is sufficient to prove his case. Para. 52 of the Affidavit in evidence of the plaintiff is reproduced below:-- "That I, consequential upon my wrongful dismissal have not only suffered a huge present and future economic loss, but also am undergoing irreversible phase of perpetual mental agony, physical stress and strain, social persecution. That I am suffering from severe mental depression, pangs of miseries and as it was not enough, I am unemployed and in this era of deep rooted recession there is no likelihood of getting suitable job in the near future."
33. ' On the other hand Mr. Tasnim submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was wrongly dismissed and is entitled to the huge damages of Rupees two crore. He further submits that the person claiming damages has to prove through evidence and mere words in affidavit in evidence are not sufficient. He relied upon the case of Sufi Muhammad Ishaq v. Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 737).
34. ' I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the evidence available on record.
35. The plaintiff in para. 52 of his affidavit in evidence states as under:-- "That I, consequential upon my wrongful dismissal have not only suffered a huge present and future economic loss, but also am undergoing irreversible phase of perpetual mental agony, physical stress and strain, social persecution. That I am suffering from severe mental depression, pangs of miseries and as it was not enough, I am unemployed and in this era of deep-rooted recession there is no likelihood of getting suitable job in the near future."
36. ' In his cross-examination the plaintiff deposed as under:-- "It is incorrect to suggest that I am not entitled for Rs,20,000,000 claimed by me in suit. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not suffered any mental agony, miseries and sufferings on account of my wrongful termination from the service."
37. ' The witness of the defendant in para. 21 of his affidavit in evidence states as under:-- "21. I say that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is not tenable under law. The plaintiff has failed to establish his case. The claim of the plaintiff is based on vague, general and no specific allegations.
38. Plaintiff has failed to prove any loss occasioned to him due to his dismissal from service. No loss to his prospects, mental agony, miseries or sufferings has been proved and no evidence to this effect has been brought on record."
39. ' The defence of the defendant appears to be general in nature and has been taken just to defeat the case of the plaintiff without any reasoning. The defendant fails to justify as to why the plaintiff has not suffered due to wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff is right that his claim in para. 52 remains unrebutted by the defendant. From the evidence it is established that the claim of the plaintiff with regard to his suffering due to wrongful dismissal is established.
40. ' Since I have held that the dismissal of the plaintiff from service was wrong, he is entitled to recover damages from the defendant. The plaintiff can claim special damages (pecuniary damages) and general damages non-pecuniary damages). However, the plaintiff has only demanded general damages (non-pecuniary damages). In an action of personal injury the damages are always divided into two main parts, First, there is what is referred to as special damage which, has to be specially pleaded and proved. This consists of loss of earning and out of pocket expenses and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation. Secondly there is general damage which in law implies and is not specially pleaded and cannot be capable of exact proof. This includes compensation for pain and suffering. What is claimed in the present case is the general damages which cannot be specifically proved and any shortcoming in the plaint or in the evidence would not come in the way of the Court awarding damages. There is no hard and fast rule to calculate the quantum of compensation, as well as there is also no yardstick to measure the sufferings. The plaintiff has claimed damages on account of huge present and future economic loss and on account of undergoing irreversible phase of perpetual mental agony, physical stress and strain, social persecution, pangs of miseries and no likelihood of getting suitable job. The plaintiff no doubt must have sustained pecuniary loss on account of wrongful dismissal in the shape of earnings but no evidence was led in this regard. The plaint is silent in this regard. The plaintiff has also not led any evidence to prove the huge present and future economic loss. The plaintiff's dismissal from service was wrongful as the same was in violation of principles of natural justice. The plaintiff in the circumstances was entitled to damages for mental agony, physical stress and social persecution.
41. This type of damages fell in the category of general damages for assessment of which no definite method is available. For computing/assessing damages consideration should be given to education, status in life, age and the position enjoyed during employment and his earnings while in employment of a person to whom injury has been caused. The plaintiff underwent harassment of unlawful dismissal during prime time of his life. The plaintiff was an officer of bank posted at New York and has enjoyed good reputation and social status and all of a sudden due to wrongful dismissal he lost everything. It is not believable that the wrongful dismissal has not caused any harm to plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the general damages. The contention of the defendant that the dismissal was right and the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages is misconceived. Now the question is that what will be the quantum of damages for which the plaintiff is entitled under the circumstances of the case. There is no hard and fast rule for grant of damages and there is also no yardstick to measure the damages caused to a person and then to determine the compensation. This is the crucial point in this case. The amount though assessed must not appear to be punitive in nature or exemplary. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Ghulam Muhammad Sagarwala (PLD 1988 Kar. 489) a learned DB of this Court held that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee on the ground of misconduct, the measure of damages may include an amount to compensate him for the injury caused to him by attributing misconduct. In the case of Sufi Muhammad Ishaque v. Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 737) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the award of compensation on account of mental torture and injuries of like nature held as under:-- "5. Previously jurists and Judges were reluctant to grant claim for damages for mental shock and torture, but now it is well settled that a person, who suffers mental torture and nervous shock, is entitled to recover damages. In Hinz v. Berry (1970) 2 BQ 40, Lord Denning observed. It has been settled that damages can be given for nervous shock caused by the sight of an accident, at any rate to a close relative. Damages are, however, recoverable for nervous shock, or to put it in medical terms, for any recognizable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of duty by the defendant. In awarding damages for nervous shock and mental torture, or psychiatric illness or psychosomatic illness, which are the terms currently used, the Court should be vigilant to see that the claim is not fanciful or remote and in fact it fairly or naturally results from the wrongful act of the defendant. Therefore, in order to claim damages for mental or nervous shock and suffering or psychiatric illness, a party must prove wrongful act done by the defendant and that due to such act he has suffered mental shock and torture, which may, at times also result in physical injuries but not in all case.
42. ' In the same judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the assessment of damages held as under:-- "8. Once it is determined that a person who suffers mental shock and injury is entitled to compensation on the principles .Stated above, the difficult question arises what should be the amount of damages for such loss caused by wrongful act of a party. There can be no yardstick or definite principle for assessing damages in such cases. The damages are meant to compensate a party who suffers an injury. It may be bodily injury, loss of reputation, business and also mental shock and suffering. So far nervous shock is concerned, it depends upon the evidence produced to prove the nature, extent and magnitude of such suffering, but even on that basis usually it becomes difficult to assess a fair compensation and in those circumstances it is the discretion of the Judge who may, on facts of the case and considering how are the society would deem it to be a fair sum, determines the amount to be awarded to a person who has suffered such a damage.
43. The conscience of the Court should be satisfied that the damages awarded would, if not completely, satisfactorily compensate the aggrieved party."
44. ' Applying the principles of the above case that compensation can be granted where a wrong has been done to a party and the damages flow from that wrong the plaintiff is entitled to a fair compensation to be assessed by the Court. The criteria is that while granting the compensation the conscience of the Court should be satisfied that the damages awarded would if not completely, satisfactorily compensate the aggrieved party. I therefore, hold that plaintiff is entitled to the damages in the sum of Rs,50,00,000, ISSUE No,3 ' Since I have held that the dismissal of the plaintiff was wrong the plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits which he was entitled at the time of his dismissal from service. The D fides of the defendant is also clear from the fact that in spite of mentioning in the dismissal letter that the legal dues, if any, are being worked out and he will be informed in due course of time, neither the dues were worked out nor the plaintiff was informed. The defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the prayer clauses "B & C" and no calculation was submitted to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount claimed in the prayer clauses "B" & "C". This further established mala fides on the part of the defendant. I therefore hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in clause "B" & "C" of the prayer.
45. ISSUE No,4: ' In view of the above the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of Rs,50,00,000 on account of damages and the amount claimed in clause "B" and "C" of the prayer along with cost of the proceedings. The office is directed to prepare the decree in the above terms.
46. Suit decreed.