1. This suit came up on Friday the 17th for urgent orders for arresting the ship and I did order the grant of a warrant with notice for today. Today Mr. Salim Akhtar for the defendants has raised a preliminary question that the present suit is incompetent within the Admiralty jurisdiction. Although this point can be finally decided only at a later stage of this suit, I think I am bound to decide it to the extent that a decision is necessary on the question whether a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs, Admittedly the Admiralty Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, which confers upon Colonial Courts of Admiralty the same jurisdiction as the Admi--ralty Courts in England enjoy, read with the Courts of Admiralty (Pakistan) Act, 1891 which designated the High Court of West Pakistan as an Adm rally Court. Since then of course this Court has succeeded to the jurisdiction of the High Court of West Pakistan; there can, therefore, be no doubt that this Court is a Court of Admiralty. As to the powers of this Court, however, one must refer to the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 which by section 6 conferred jurisdiction in respect of any claim by the owner or consignee or assigne. Of any bill of lading of any goods carried into the relevant ports in certain circumstances. Admittedly the present suit is not by the owner or consignee or assignee but by the charterers and counsel on both sides A therefore, agree that the present suit is not covered by section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, argued that subsequently, that is, in the year 1925, the jurisdiction of the English Courts of Admiralty was enlarged by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 so as to cover suits of the nature now under discussion. The question, however, is whether this enlargement of the jurisdic--tion of the English Courts would of necessity and automatically result in the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts created by the Act of 1890 whose jurisdiction is deter--mined by the previous Act of 1861. Learned counsel argued that even if the Act of 1925 could not be called in aid never--theless under the Act of 1861 this Court has still jurisdiction because this Court was given the jurisdiction which vested in English Courts. He argued that in Common law the English Courts would have had a jurisdiction to try a case of a kind which is before me now. Unfortunately for this argument, however, there is a dechion of the Privy Council which concludes both questions, namely, the case reported in The Yuri Maru v. The Crown (1). In this case their Lordships of the Privy Council hold that the Act of 1925 does not serve to increase the juris--diction of the Colonial Courts and also be held expressly that the jurisdiction already covered did not exolude the jurisdiction in rem to try an action for breach of charter party.
2. (1)1927 A C 906 I am bound by the decision of the Privy Council unless a contrary view is expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and I have, therefore, no option but to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction. It must follow without going into any other question involved in the case that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. I accordingly dismiss this application before me and rozall the previous order.
3. The relevant authorities including Collector of Customs and the Port Trust Authorities will of course be informed accordingly.