1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- The plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration that notice dated 28-4-1987 issued by defendant No,2 is void and declared that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs,10,00,000 damages suffered to the plaintiff and directing the defendant No,1 to supply 22 Computers and Printers in the alternatively to return the amount of Rs,19,89,416 with 18 per cent interest thereon from the date of receipt of the said amount till payment. Notices/ summons were issued to the parties and defendant No,1 was declared ex parte on 31-5-1999. Vide order, dated 31- 1-2002.
2. On the basis of pleading following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the notice dated 28-4-1997 issued by the defendant No,2 was bad in law and affected the reputation and caused damages to the plaintiff?
(2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay damages? If so, what is the quantum?
(3) Whether the defendant No,1 is liable to supply computers and printers as per agreement, dated 9-9-1996?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is in the alternative entitled for refund/ return of Rs,19,89,460?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
(6) What should the decree be?
3. ' On 31-5-1997 plaintiff withdraw the suit against defendant No,1 and accordingly plaintiff was directed to file affidavit in ex parte proof, the plaintiff filed affidavit in ex parte proof along with documents in support of its claim. Heard Mr. Arshad Mubeen learned Advocate for the plaintiff and my findings on the issues are as under:-- Issue No,1 Since the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit against defendant No,1 there is no need to give any finding on this issue.
4. Issues Nos.2 to 4 ' The plaintiff school in order to provide better facilities to his students agreed to provide computers and printers to their students and staff members to be used at their residence after purchasing the same on fund leasing basis from Modaraba Companies. The said amount was to be recovered by the plaintiff from the students and staff members from the tuition fee/salaries in instalments.
5. Messrs First Allied Bank, Modaraba agreed to provide a sum of Rs,19,89,416 for leasing payable in five years to purchase computers/printers to be provided to the interested students and staff members. A sum of Rs,16,13,480 was paid to defendant No,1 under cheque No,964447 dated 12-12- 1996 by the Modaraba Company and balance amount of Rs,3,75,936 was paid by the plaintiff from his own resources under Invoice No,Com-1285/96 dated 4-12-1996. The defendant failed to supply any computer resulting that the plaintiff has to pay the amount of Rs,21,10,000 from his own resources to settle the dispute with the Modaraba Company who had filed the Suit No,15 of 1998 (Execution No,I37 of 1998) against the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount disbursed by them.
6. ' Along with the affidavit-in-evidence plaintiff produced lease financing document, purchase order dated September 9, 1996 Exh.P.1/7 for Rs,1,989,416 in respect of 22 IBM compatible computers.
7. Invoice dated 4-12-1996 a cheque of Rs,16,13,480 issued by Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. In favour of defendant No,1, letter dated 26-1-1997 addressed by the Modaraba Company to defendant No,1 confirming that they paid a sum of Rs,16,22,000 but the defendant No,1 failed to deliver the equipment despite lapse of considerable time. From the documents on record it is established beyond any doubt that though defendant No,1 has received a sum of Rs,19,96,560 for the supply of 22 computers and printers but failed to deliver the same. The plaintiff due to failure of defendant to supply computer has to pay a sum of Rs,21,10,000 to Modaraba company to settle the dispute as per terms of lease agreement which amount defendant ought to have to pay to the plaintiff.
8. Accordingly, plaintiff's suit is decreed in a sum of Rs,21,10,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Malt till realization with costs.