' This suit was instituted on 21-10-1972 by the plaintiffs, a firm trading under the name of United Oriental Shipping Company and its partners, against the National Shipping Corporation for recovery of Rs.3,30,383.63 on account of expenses and damages suffered as a result of collusion which took place on 23-10-1970 between ss. "Anwarbaksh" a vessel then owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant's vessel m.v. "Padma."
2. During the pendency of the suit, pursuant to the provisions of the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Ordinance (III of 1974) promulgated on 1-1-1974, subsequently enacted as Act No.XVIII of 1974 (published on 11-3-1974) the ownership of the vessel ss. "Anwarbaksh" with all its rights was taken over and acquired by the Federal Government and the plaintiffs stood divested of the same. Section 23 (2) of these enactments expressly provided that the suits, appeals and other legal proceedings of whatever nature pending by or against such establishments shall not abate, be discontinued or in any way prejudicially affected by reason of such transfer or anything done under the said statutes but the same may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the Corporation wholly owned or controlled by Government or set up for the purpose, under the aforementioned laws.
3. Thereafter on 31-8-1976 under the Act No.LIV of 1976 Pakistan Shipping Corporation was established to which Corporation the proprietary interests and management of the establishments (which included United Oriental Steamship Co.) listed in the Second Schedule to the said Act, stood transferred and vested. Consequently, the Corporation thus formed became the owner of the ship ss. 'Anwarbaksh' being a part of the assets of the acquired establishment. By section 31(4) of the said Act of 1976 the pending suits appeals and other legal proceedings by or against the acquired establishments were saved and it was inter alia provided that the same be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the Corporation.
' It would be relevant to mention here that till this period notwith standing the promulgation of the laws referred to above, the National Shipping Corporation, the defendant, established_ under the Ordinance of (IV of 1963) continued to enjoy its separate corporate status and was excluded from the mischief of the aforementioned enactments.
4. However, on 29-3-1979 the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation Ordinance, (XX of 1979) came into force whereby National Shipping Corporation (the defendant) as well as Pakistan Shipping Corporation (in which the plaintiff establishment had merged as discussed above) stood dissolved as at the close of the 31st December, 1978 and amalgamated in Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, established by this Ordinance of 1979. The National Shipping Corporation Ordinance, 1963 (IV of 1963) and Pakistan Shipping Corporation Act (LIV of 1976) were repealed as from 1-1- 1979.
5(i). In the above circumstances the position, which thus emerges, is that the plaintiff as well as defendant, the ownership of the two vessels involved in the alleged collusion and the right to claim as well the obligation to pay the amount and to continue/prosecute as also to defend the suit vest in the same Corporation, namely, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. In such a situation in my opinion the suit can no longer be continued as a person in law has no right to maintain an action against himself. The view thus taken by me finds support from the case Simpson and Company v.
Thompson Burrell (1877) 3 Appeal Cases 279. After going through the reported judgment and finding that the facts and law have been correctly summarised in the head note, for the sake of convenience, I reproduce the same hereinbelow:- "There is no independent right in underwriters to maintain in their own name, and without reference to the person insured, and action for damage to the thing insured.
' Although the underwriters have paid for a total loss, and are entitled to all the rights in the injured ship which belong to its owner, yet if that owner cannot assert a right for damages against the wrongdoer, neither can the underwriters.
' Two ships, the property of the same owner, collided; the underwriters paid the insurance effected on the lost ship, and then claimed to rank pari passu, with the owners of cargo destroyed, in the distribution of the fund lodged in Court by the owner as proprietor of the ship which did the damage:- ' Held (reversing the decision of the Court below), that the underwriters had no such right under the circumstances of the case.
' Per The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairna).--The underwriters' right must be asserted in the name of the person insured, but if he be the person who has caused the damage, the right cannot be maintained against himself.
' Per Lord Penzance.-- The underwriters of the lost ship have no right of action against the owner of the ship that did the mischief, as he himself had no such right, inasmuch as, being the owner of both vessels, any right of action he had must be a right of action against himself, which is an absurdity, and a thing unknown to the law."
(The underlines are by me)
(ii) I may also refer here to the case of Neale v. Turton 130 E R 725 wherein on the facts of the case Best C.J. observed:- "There is no principle by which a man can be at the sametime plaintiff and defendant."
' The principles enunciated in the above-cited cases are applicable fully to the facts of the present case as well. By operation of law Pakistan National Shipping Corporation is the person in whom vests not only the ownership of the two vessels involved in the accident but who also is the only person entitled to prosecute as well as defend the suit in its own right. The right of action which the plaintiff seeks to enforce in the circumstances is against himself, which as observed above, is an absurdity and a thing unknown to law.
' The suit for the reasons discussed above is, therefore, dispose+ of as no longer maintainable.