1. ' This is a suit for the recovery of Rs,25,23,437. Case of the plaintiff is that in November, 1988, it was appointed as agent by the defendant. The commission was fixed at the usual rate of 2.5% of the contract amount. The plaintiff acted as agent for defendant and by their efforts concluded the contract dated 16-1-1989, between the defendant No,1 and Karachi Auto Mobile Corporation. The salient features of the contract are given in para. 3 of the plaint. On the conclusion of this contract the plaintiff became entitled to the commission. Subsequently Karachi Auto Mobile Corporation made out a case that defendant No,1 had suppressed the information about their credibility and had practised fraud on them, while the defendants denied this fact. Ultimately the contract was repudiated and it was usually agreed between defendant No,1 and Karachi Auto Mobile Corporation that they would not make any claim against each other and that the former shall not black list defendant No,1. The defendant substituted the contract dated 16-1-1989 with second contract for consideration. Both the contracts are lawful. The second contract can be specifically performed. The second contract was also subject to payment of commission. The value of the first contract dated 16-1-1989 worth U.S. $ 53,12,500 is converted in Pakistani currency to Rs,10,09,37,500.
2. The plaintiff sent two telexes to the defendant to pay the due commission. On this the defendant agreed to pay U.S. $ 45,000 in full and final settlement of the plaintiff's claim. But they did not pay the said amount in spite of repeated demands. The amount comes to Rs,25,23,437 in Pakistani currency. Hence this suit. Compensation of loss of money has also been claimed at 20% per annum till the final payment. Defendant No,2 was served, but he has chosen to remain absent and has not filed any written statement, although his counsel had obtained adjournments from time to time.
3. Defendant No,1 could not be served. Finally an attempt was made to serve him by courier service.
4. Mr. Abdul Rauf has produced a certificate of D.H.L. Showing that the summon has not returned and therefore, it is assumed that the same was delivered to the consignee. I am satisfied that defendant No,1 has been served with the summon in this suit also because defendant No,2 was the Chief Executive of defendant No,1 who was served while he was staying at Karachi and service of summons on defendant No,2 is a good service so far as .Defendant No,1 is concerned. The plaint is verified on oath and is accompanied by the photostat copies of the following documents:- "1. Telexes.9.dated 25-11-1938 dated 8-1-1989 dated 9-1-1989 dated 21-1-1989 dated 5-1-1989 dated 6-1-1989 dated 6-3-1989 dated 6-3-1989 dated 6-3-1989
2. List of Executives Associated with Banker dated 22-12-1988."
5. ' The above evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and un- rebutted. I, therefore, decree the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs,25,23,437. I also allow interest at 10% per annum in lieu of compensation from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the decretal amount. Costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendants. The liability of defendants Nos.1 and 2 shall be joint and several.