' This Revision Application under section 115, C. P. C. Read with section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is by the defendants/applicants from the judgment and decree, dated 19- 10-1971, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, being suit No, 282 of 1970, for a sum of Rs, 4,299 in the following circumstances.
2. The respondent had a saving bank account No, 3150 with applicant No, 1, with its New Challi Branch. He had drawn two cheques, the first bearing No, J/A 189261, dated 1-4-1969 for Rs, 2,000 in favour of Mr. Bashir Ahmed Advocate and the second bearing No, J/A 189263, dated 9-4-1969 for Rs, 500 payable to self. Both these cheques were dishonoured though the respondent had Rs, 4,299 in his said account. When the cheque issued in favour of Mr. Bashir Ahmed was dishonoured a legal notice, dated 22-4.1969 was served on the applicants.
' The respondent also presented another cheque bearing No, J/A 189264, dated 6-5-1969, for Rs, 500 payable to self. This cheque was also returned unpaid under the memorandum, dated 6-5- 1969, with endorsement refer to the drawer.
3. The respondent therefore, filed the suit for recovery of Rs, 4,299 besides such amount as had accrued due to him by way of half-yearly interest together with interest at 9% per annum till satisfaction of the decree.
4. In the written statement the applicants admitted that a sum of Rs, 4,299 was lying in the account but claimed that the same was adjusted against loss caused by the respondent to the applicants.
The reason for loss caused to the applicants stated in the written statement was that the respondent on his own accord had introduced and signed an account opening from of a person purporting to be Abdul Sattar Allah Rakha Rathod. According to the averments made in the written statement Abdul Sattar was an imposter and he had forged the signature of another person of the same name who had account with the Macleod Road, Karachi Branch of applicant No,
1. It was further alleged that the respondent introduced and signed said form of the imposter although he did not know him. The applicants therefore. Claimed that the respondent by introducing and signing the account opening form of a person whom he did not know led the applicants to believe that the imposter was a respectable person and that it was sate to open his account. It was submitted that the applicants would not have opened the account but for the introduction by the respondent. It was further averred in the written statement that after opening the account the said person wrote to applicant No, 2 requesting that Account No, 4895 in the name of Abdul Sattar Allah Rakha Rathod in MacLeod Road Branch of the applicants be transferred to New Challi Branch and credited to his account and accordingly the applicant transferred a sum of Rs, 8,995.98 to the account opened by the said person in New Cha Ili Branch of the applicant and thereafter the said person by the two cheques withdrew two sums or Rs, 3,000 and 4,000.
5. Thus the applicants after setting off a sum of Rs, 4,299 which was lying to the credit of the respondent in his account, counter-claimed from the respondent remaining sum of Rs, 2,701.
6. In reply to the counter-claim the respondent submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim by way of compensation and damages under section 15 (Schedule II) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. And that the counter-claim together with the amount set off, as stated in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the written statement, was Rs, 7,000 which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. He further submitted that he had signed the introduction form at the request of the employees of the applicants and mere introduction on the request of the applicants in no way was a guarantee or constituted an undertaking on his part.
7. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi by the judgment and decree impugned in this Revision Application decreed the suit of the respondent on admission but dismissed the counter- claim stating that the applicants' case was that the respondent was negligent as he did not know the name of the person whom he was introducing to them with the result that they accepted his statement as correct and opened the account and thus they suffered the loss. According to the learned Judge this statement did not amount to negligence but it amounted to cheating. He reasoned that if the respondent did not know the person whom he was introducing to the applicants and the applicants upon his statement suffered a loss it amounts to cheating and does not amount to negligence. According to the learned Judge the applicants tried to set up the case of negligence in order to avoid the provisions of the Second Schedule where under suits for compensation are excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. In any case he reasoned that if the respondent had cheated by introducing a person who was an imposter, they should have filed a separate suit against him in the civil Court but they could not withhold the amount of Rs, 4,299. He therefore, decreed the suit.
8. I have heard Mr. G. H. Malik learned counsel for the applicants. He submitted that the counter- claim made by the applicants was within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. He further submitted that the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Karachi wrongfully relied on sub clause (h) (ii) of Clause 35 of Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, which excepts suit for compensation for an act which is, or, save for the provisions of Chapter IV of the Pakistan Penal Code, would be, an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the said Code. He submitted that his case was not of cheating but was of negligence. According to him the applicants have not alleged in the written statement that the respondent 'fraudulently' or 'dishonestly' induced them to open the account, which is a necessary ingredient of the offence and therefore, the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the suit for compensation was therefore, not excepted under Clause 35 (0 of the Second Schedule.
9. The submission of Mr. Malik seems to be correct but the suit seems to be excepted under sub clause (1) which excepts suit for compensation' for injury to the person in any case not specified in the other sub-clauses of Clause 35. It may be convenient to reproduce herein below the sub- clause of Clause 35 which read as follows: "(35) a suit for compensation -
(n) for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong;
(b) for wrongful arrest, restraint or confinement;
(c) for malicious prosecution;
(d) for libel;
(e) for slander; ( f) for adultery or seduction;
(g) for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage;
(h) tor inducing a person to break a contract made with the plaintiff;
(i) for obstruction of an easement or diversion of a water-course;
(ii) for an act which is, or save for the provisions of Chapter IV of the Pakistan Penal Code, would be, an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the said Code; ( j) for illegal, improper or excessive distress attachment or search, or for trespass committed in, or damage caused by, the illegal or improper execution of any distress, search or legal process ;
(k) for improper arrest under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure or in respect of the issue of an injunction wrongfully obtained under Chapter XXXV of that Code; or
(1) for injury to the person in any case not specified in the foregoing sub-clauses of this clause."
' It is however, submitted by Mr. Malik that the applicants' counterclaim for compensation was for loss caused to them by negligence and was, therefore, not covered by sub-clause (1). He submitted that the word `injury' used in sub-clause (1) should be understood in the restricted sense of personal injury by way of bodily harm.
10. The word Injury' is not defined in the Provincial Small Couse's Courts Act, 1887. It should therefore, be understood in ordinary sense. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it means 1. Wrongful action or treatment; violation or infringement of another's rights; suffering or mischief wilfully and unjustly inflicted. A wrongful act; a wrong inflicted or suffered.
2. Intentionally hurtful or offensive speech or words; reviling, insult, columny; a taunt, an affront, obs.
(cf. F. Injure-parole effensante, outrageuse).
3. Hurt or loss caused to or sustained by a person or thing; harm, detriment, damage.
' It is defined in "Law Terms and Phrases Judicially Interpreted" by Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal as a violation of another's right or a breach of a legal duty to the prejudice of another. It is an act contrary to law.
' Even in section 44 of the Pakistan Penal Code it is defined as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.
' Therefore, the word 'injury' will include all kinds of injuries.
11. Further, the submission of Mr. Malik that the word 'injury' should be given restricted meaning cannot be accepted for the reason that reference in sub-clause (1) is made to other sub-clause of Clause 35 which includes sub-clauses relating injury to person as well as to property. Accordingly injury to person or property which is not specified in other sub-clause would, in my opinion, be covered by this sub-clause. Moreover, in the case of Abdul Kadar Ebrahim Sura and another v.
Kashinath Moreshwar Chandani and another (1), it was held that the word 'injury' is a word of large import and cannot be restricted to mean monetary injury only as was contended in that case.
Similarly in the present case it cannot be restricted only to physical or bodily injury to the person who Claims compensation.
' Reference may also be made to Indian News Chronicle Ltd. v. Luis Lazrus (2), wherein while considering the meaning of this word 'injury' as used in section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it was held that injury caused by accident should not be confined to physical injury but it includes a strain which causes exposure to draught or causes a chill.
' Lastly, this word also came up for consideration in several English cases. In the case of Hildon Hotel v. Dominion Insuran e Corporation (3), it was held that the word 'injury' can mean the infringement of some right considered as having a money value, and is not restricted to physical damage.
(I) AIR 1968 Born. 267 (2) AIR 1951 Pb. 102
(3) (1968) 66 W R 289 I am, therefore, of the opinion that the word 'injury' used in sub clause (1) has to be understood in broader sense and not only in the sensel of bodily harm.
12. Accordingly, I am of the view that even if the claim mad by the applicants was not excepted from cognizance by a Court of Small Causes under sub-clause (h) paragraph (ii) it was surely excepted under sub-clause (1) and therefore, besides the question whether the respondent in introducing Abdul Sattar Allah Rakha Rathod to the bank committed any actionable wrong the injury, if any, caused was covered by sub-clause (1) and therefore, a suit for compensation was excepted under clause 35(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, and in this view of the matter the applicants' counter-claim was not entertain-able by the Small Causes Court.
13. I, therefore, find no merits in this Revision Application and dismiss it with no order as to costs as the respondent who was appearing in person has remained absent today.