1. SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---This is Regular Second Appeal by the defendants in the suit, which was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.164,765. It arises in the background briefly mentioned below. The respondents/plaintiff had been awarded a contract for the supply of 5,20,000 jute bags at the unit price of Rs.15/50 vide contract dated 18-6-1980 (Exh.P.1). The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the entire goods were supplied and delivered as per inspection in conformity with the contract and 80% of the price was paid and it was after the lapse of one year of the delivery of the goods when the plaintiff was informed through letter dated 19-5-1982 (Exh.D/5) that 10400 bags were defective. (This figure of 10400 was later raised to 10630). After some correspondence on the subject the plaintiff instituted the suit on 14-9-1983 for the recovery of abovementioned amount, which was contested by the appellants by filing written statement. The following issues were then framed:-- "(1) Whether the plaint has not been verified in accordance with requirements of law. If so, to what legal effect? OPD
(2) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in hand? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the wit amount from the defendants as prayed for?
OPP
(4) Relief.
2. Since one of the objections raised in the written statement was about the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the civil Court, Lahore, it gave rise to Issue No.2. On this preliminary issue the parties were heard by the trial Court and vide order dated 19-7-1987 it was held that the civil Court, Lahore had got jurisdiction in the matter. The evidence was led by the parties on the 'rest of the issues, in view of which the trial Court returned findings on Issue No.1 against the defendants. The material issue thus, left was Issue No.3, which was decided against the respondent/plaintiff and the suit was accordingly dismissed on 13-12-1987. On appeal the learned appellate Court framed following additional issues:- "3-A. Whether the defendant No.2 recovered the disputed amount arbitrarily, illegally and without adverting to the fact, from other bills of the plaintiff pertaining to different contract? OPP 3-B.Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff were free from all defects and were of uniform quality and strength and that the damage to the goods was caused by the officials of the defendants due to improper storage, careless handling etc.? OPP"
3. The same were remitted to the trial Court for recording findings qua the same. Only the plaintiff/respondent produced evidence on the additional issues whereas the appellants/ defendants absented and were proceeded ex parte. The findings on these issues were recorded by the same trial Judge that "damage might have caused to the bags due to the improper handling of the defendants after the delivery of possession, and at the time of use, the defective bags must have been pin pointed. When the bags were taken in custody by the officials of defendants then the plaintiff was out of reach and he could not be held responsible for its proper storage and transportation." The issues were decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff on 7-3-1990. When the matter reached the appellate Court, the appeal of the respondent/plaintiff was accepted on 15-10-1995.
4. Despite efforts made to serve the legal representatives of the respondent, none has come forward.
5. The appeal thus, has been heard ex parte. The learned Deputy Attorney General, Pakistan who represents the appellants contends that the suit has wrongly been decreed by the lower appellate Court inasmuch as defective goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff were liable to be replaced within 12 months of the delivery in view of clause 10(d) read with clause 15 of the contract. It is contended that the relevant clauses of the contract were not kept in view by the appellate Court in granting decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The evidence produced by the parties has been considered. The controversy is limited as to the tems of contract of supply dated 18-6-1980 (Exh.P.1) and the law applicable. According to contract (condition No.10) the goods were to be delivered at Karachi and place of inspection was also mentioned at Karachi. Even the inspecting authority and inspecting officer designated therein had to inspect the goods at Karachi. As per Condition No.13, "Deliveries for the purpose of clause 10 will be deemed to have been completed on the date the supplies have been tendered for inspection/sampling to the Inspecting Officer." The stance of the respondent/plaintiff had been that the goods were supplied in conformity with the contract and letters for inspection were duly issued (Exh.P.8 etc.) and bags were accepted by the defendants after due inspection. Letter dated 26-10-1982 (Exh.P.20) was addressed by the respondent/ plaintiff to the Director General Procurement (Army) Ministry of Defence the contents whereof due to the relevance to the controversy may be reproduced:- "Under instruction from you the C.M.A. Has deducted the price of the Bags from our bills pertaining to the current contracts. This, as we feel, is highly unjustified because of the following reasons:-
(I) The contract was completed duly inspected by BIU and covered by the Inspection Certificate.
(II) That the store did not and does not contain any latent and patent defects.
(III) Store was dispatched by BIU to the MGDs who kept them in store for a period of one year.
6. Clause 15 of DP-35 pertains to latent and patent defects only.
(IV) The defect reportedly is "damaged store" which apparently became damaged during the period of transit or storage in any case after inspection when the store was considered acceptable.
(2) You are requested to be kind enough to instruct the C.M.A. (DP) to refund our deducted amount as reconstructed para.8 of DP-35 permits deductions only in case of L.D and Risk Purchase from the other contracts and makes no scope for contracts successfully completed after inspectiOn by the Purchaser's Inspection Agency.
(3) Under the circumstances stated above we do not feel obliged to give any replacement.
7. Thanking you, we are,"
8. On the other hand the appellants/defendants continued insisting for the replacement of 10630 bags. Reliance upon clause 15 regarding warranty as to quality and quantity is inapt in the circumstances of the case inasmuch as the goods were supplied, delivered and accepted after due inspection and remained in the control and stores of the appellants/defendants for about a year, thereafter. It was only through letter dated 19-5-1982 that the respondent/plaintiff was informed for the first time that 10400 bags were found damaged. The stance of the respondent/plaintiff that since the goods were accepted on due inspection, the damage if any found after delivery of the same almost one year thereafter could have been due to any act, omission, improper storage or careless handling by the defendants, is not without substance. The cumulative reading of sections 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 shows that the place of examination/inspection of the goods are to be taken as place of delivery and that if any defect in the goods is found the same is to be conveyed within a reasonable time. In Rahim Baldish Piracha v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1978 SCM R 220) a question as to reasonable opportunity for inspection of the goods arose and it was observed that ''reasonable opportunity does not mean unlimited period." That was a case where the seller gave to the buyer opportunity for inspection, which the later failed to avail and it was held that the seller was not at fault. In Messrs Mahmood Industries v. West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority and another (1987 CLC 1196), a learned Division Bench of this Court held that after the goods had been accepted on inspection, the same could not be rejected afterwards, unilaterally. In the instant case the consistent stance of the respondent/plaintiff was that the goods were delivered as per the contract, which were accepted on due inspection and no defect was found at the time of inspection and delivery. This is the sum and substance of statement of lzhar-ul-Haq P.W.1 whereas Captain Khan Muhammad Butt, D.W.1 produced by the appellants/ defendants had admitted in his deposition that the goods were received after inspection as per contract and when the same were received no defect was found therein. In presence of such evidence on the record no breach of contract can be attributed to the respondent/plaintiff in the supply of goods. His suit was rightly decreed by the appellate Court. I find no factual or legal infirmity in the judgment impugned, which is upheld. In view of the above, the appeal being without merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.