' This revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against judgment passed by the Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, on 30-4-1977 in Suit No,181/70 and judgment passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) in Civil Appeal No,277/85.
2. The facts giving rise to the present application briefly stated are that the Government of West Pakistan Agricultural Department, Lahore, imported 730 Transportable Motor Sprayers packed in 730 cases and spare parts of the said, sprayers packed in 51 cases under two separate invoices vide common Bill of Lading 'No,122 ' dated 30-10-1968. The order for the supply of the above consignment was placed with Messrs Inter-Export Yugoslavia, through their agents Asian Associated Agencies, 118, Qamar House, Bundar Road, Karachi. The above consignment was shipped in 781 wooden cases vide Bill of Lading No,122 Rejika dated 30-10-1968 through s.s. "Srbija" owned by Messrs Jugeslavenska Linijska Plovidaba (Jugo Transpart), Rejika, Yugoslavia, through their agents Messrs Pak Shaheen Trading Company. The ship arrived at Karachi Port on or about 11- 1-1969 and three packages out of the consignment were shortlanded at the port. The District Controller of Stores (Shipping), PWR Karachi Cantt., the agents of the Government of West Pakistan, reported shortage of the consignment vide their letter dated 12-3-1969. The agents of the Government of West Pakistan, repeatedly requested the agents of the exports to take decision in respect of packages shortlanded at Karachi Port. They, however, made a reference to them intimating that the three packages were lying with all marks. It was found that the packages with Nil marks did not conform to the original requirement as confirmed by the consignee and therefore could not be taken to be the part of consignment. The Government of West Pakistan ultimately filed a suit for recovery of Rs,13,377.89.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants asserted that three cases had landed under Nil marks which was part of the consignment and the plaintiffs had refused to accept the delivery and the defendants were not liable for the loss due to non-delivery thereof. The value of each case was also disputed.
4. The trial Judge, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, settled the following issues:-- "(1) Did the defendants unload all 781 cases at Karachi Port?
(2) Are the defendants liable to pay the value of the three shortlanded cases and if so up to what amount?
(3) Did the defendants repudiate the claim of the plaintiffs and if not its effect?
(4) Has any cause of action arisen to the plaintiffs?
(5) Are the defendants liable to pay Rs,13,877.89?
(6) What should the decree be?
5. The plaintiffs examined one witness Sadiq, an Upper Division Clerk in Pakistan Railways, who produced the shipping and other decuments while the defendants examined one witness Muhammad Sadiq, Clerk in the Claim Section of the defendants Messrs Pak Shaheen Trading Company, who also produced certain documents.
6. The trial Judge answered issues (1) and (3) in the negative and considered issues (2), (5) and (6) together and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the amount claimed by them due to non- delivery of the three cases. Issue (4) was not pressed by the parties. As a result of his findings on various issues he decreed the suit in the sum of Rs,13,877.89 with costs and with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of the decree till realisation of the amount.
7. The two defendants filed an appeal which was ultimately decided by the IVth Additional District Judge (South) Karachi (Civil Appeal No,277/86) by his judgment passed on 11-4-1987 whereby the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. It is against the two judgments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that the present revision application has been filed.
9. Mr. Nasim Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate for the applicants, firstly contended that according to Exh.32 there was shortage of one package only. He further contended that in absence of any declaration having been made by the plaintiffs of value of the shortlanded cases, according to clause (24) of the Bill of Lading the plaintiffs could at best claim 100 per package. He relied on cases reported in PLD 1974 Kar. 171 and PLD 1983 Kar.
29.
10. Mr. Hayat Muhammad Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the respondents, contended that the applicants have not been able to show that any ground exists on record to enable this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in exercise of its power under section 115, C.P.C.
11. As regards the first point urged by Mr. Nasim Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate for the applicants, he has referred to Exh.32, which indicates that one package containing-Transportable Motor was short- delivered to the District Controller of Stores (Shipping) PWR, Karachi. This document does not refer to the short delivery of the three packages containing spare parts but relates to Transportable Motor which was recovered later on. His argument on such aspect of the case, therefore, has no force.
12. As regards his second contention that the plaintiffs at best will be liable to recover maximum amount equivalent to 100 per missing package, also has no force, as in the instant case the Bill of lading indicated the total value of all the packages containing spare parts. The value of each package was worked out by distributing a total amount on an average. No where in the cross- examination any question was put disputing such value. The two cases referred by him will be applicable where nature and value of goods is not declared and entered in the Bill of Lading. It is only in such cases the carriers can seek protection under Article 6, Rule 5.
The learned Advocate for the applicants did not urge any other grounds to enable this Court to revise the two judgments impugned herein in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court under section 115 C.P.C.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.