1. ' This First Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree of the First Senior Civil Judge, First Class, Karachi, passed in Suit No. 1982 of 1972.
2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000 against the respondent on the allegation that a consignment of 500 tins of mustard oil was shipped by the appellant on board the vessel ss. "SUBHAN" from Chittagong port under Receipt No. 265, dated 2-11-1971, for delivery to the plaintiff at Dacca. The aforesaid consignment was insured with the respondents under a policy, which covered risk of F.P.A., non-delivery, strikes and riots and civil commotion. It is an admitted position that the consignment was A not delivered to the plaintiff/appellant, and it is also not disputed that the claim in respect of the policy was payable at Karachi. The respondent/defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff/appellant, and took the plea that the losses suffered by the plaintiff/appellant were not covered under the terms of the insurance policy. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and going through the evidence recorded in the case, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, against which the present appeal has been filed.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff /appellant was entitled to a decree against the respondent, as the loss suffered by the plaintiff/appellant was fully covered under the civil commotion clause of the policy. It is contended by the learned counsel that under the Civil Commotion Compensation Funds Ordinance (XXI of 1971) all losses suffered by persons from 1-3-1971, the date mentioned in the Ordinance, until 3-8- 1972, when the Ordinance was repealed, in the then territory of East Pakistan, were made payable as losses arising as a result of civil commotion, if such losses were not covered specifically under an Insurance Policy. It is accordingly contended that, in the present case, in the Insurance Policy issued to the appellant, the risk of loss arising from civil commotion was covered, and the appellant was entitled to a decree in the case. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the loss suffered by the plaintiffs could only be paid to them, if it is held that the loss suffered by the plaintiffs arose on account of civil commotion. The word "civil commotion" has not been defined in the Civil Commotion Compensation Funds Ordinance (XXI of 1971). In the case of Messrs Rauf and Company Ltd. v. Alpha Insurance Company Ltd. PLD 1981 Kar. 457, I had the occasion of considering the meaning of the expression "civil commotion" with reference to a claim, which was ade under insurance policy, which covered the risk of civil commotio in respect of the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in those cases in he then territory of East Pakistan. After considering the various dictionary meaning of the expression "civil commotion", and comparing the same with the conditions then East Pakistan the conclusion existing in East Pakistan in the ear 1971, I reached the conclusion that the conditions prevailing in :st Pakistan in the year 1971 could not be treated as civil commotion, and, on that reasoning, the claims made in both these suits in the a oove-noted case were dismissed by me. Civil commotion clause in t e case of Messrs Rauf &, Co. Is identical to the civil commotion the use in the present case, and the period, during which The logs suffered by the plaintiff in the present case, is also the same, w ich was under consideration in the case of Messrs Rauf & Co. I, therefore, find no distinction between the two cases, and I have not be-n able to persuade myself to take any view contrary to that which expressed in the case of Messrs Rauf & Co.
4. Referred to above. Mr Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, learned counsel for the appellant, attempt-d to distinguish the case decided by me, referred to above Rauf & o. On the ground that, under the Civil Commotion Compensation Fu ds Ordinance, 1971, the intention of the Legislature was to pay to a person, who suffered losses during the period from 1-3-1971 to 3-8-1'72 in East Pakistan, and this was treated by the Government as a civil commotion. I am afraid, no such intention is spelt out from he Ordinance, referred to by the learned counsel. The losses unde the policy, which is the subject-matter of the present suit, were covered only in the event the losses were suffered by the plaintiff as a result of civil commotion. As I have reached the conclusion that the conditions prevailing in 'East Pakistan in the year 1971 were n t civil commotion, the question of payment of any claim under the policy does not arise. The trial Court, therefore, rightly dismisse the suit, as the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to payment of an loss under the insurance policy. There is no merit in this appea , which is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, I will make no Order was to costs.