1. ' The claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit is based on the contracts dated 15-4-1982 and 20-4- 1982 for supply of readymade men's shirts long sleeves of mixed fabrics 65% polyester 35% cotton in the sum of US $ 86,520 and for supply of men's shirts short sleeves pilot style of mixed fabrics in the same ratio for the sum of US $ 38,500 respectively. According to the contract the defendants, who are the purchasers, had to pay the price of the said goods against 90 days D.A. Basis through bills of exchange within 90 days after acceptance of the documents which were agreed to be sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants' bankers in England namely National Westminster Bank PLC through plaintiffs bankers U.B.L. Corporate Branch, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi for acceptance and the shipment was to be made by the plaintiffs to the defendants by sea. The case of the plaintiffs further is that according to the above contracts they shipped the consignments to the defendants through Odessa Ocean Lines vide Bills of Lading dated 29-4-1982 and 21-7-1982 respectively and the invoices were also sent for the said amount alongwith the Bills of Lading and Bills of Exchange through plaintiffs' bankers Messrs United Bank Limited to the bankers of the defendants in England which were accepted. However, it is contended that the defendants made payment of only US $ 31,940 on 13-10-1982 as against the two contracts of total amount of US $ 1,25,020 and thus an amount of US $ 93,080 is still outstanding against the defendants for which the plaintiffs sent several reminders and ultimately the defendants vide their letter dated 12-4-1985 accepting their liability for the abovesaid outstanding amount agreed to pay the same by end of the month of April 1985. The said letter has been placed on record as Annexure `I'. Since the said payment was not made by the defendants the plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery of amount Rs,16,05,630 equivalent to US $ 93,080. The defendants could not be served in ordinary manner and as such the notice was published in a newspaper of England namely Wembly Observer of August 16, 1990. By an order passed on 16-11-1990 the present suit was fixed for final disposal.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Syed Ishtiaq Ali, Advocate for the plaintiffs who is present while none is present for the defendants. Mr. Syed Ishtiaq Ali, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the documents placed on record i.e, contracts, bills of lading, invoices and the correspondence between the parties fully substantiate the case of the plaintiffs and since they have chosen to remain absent and have failed to contest the suit, the suit ought to be decreed as prayed. I have perused the above documents. The documents fully subtantiate the plaintiffs' case. The copy of the contract placed on the record also shows that the shipment was to be made by sea and that according to the terms of payment the same had to be paid within 90 days after receiving the goods on 90 days D.A. Basis. However, the said contract does not show as to where the contract was entered into or where the payment was to be made. The question in such circumstances arise as to whether this Court at Karachi was competent to try the suit? Mr. Syed Ishtiaq Ali, Advocate has referred to section 20(c) of the C.P.C. Which provides that the suit can also he filed 'where cause of action wholly or partially arises'. In the present case, of course, the contract does not mention if it was entered into at Karachi nor does it show where the payment was required to he made but in paragraphs 3 and 7 of plaint it has been asserted by the plaintiffs that the orders were placed by the defendants at Karachi. It is also stated in the plaint that the goods were delivered by the plaintiffs to the carrier of Karachi which fact is fully supported by the Bills of Lading. This fact not having been rebutted, there is no reason as to why the contention of the plaintiffs should not be accepted. Even otherwise the rule of common law is that the debtor must seek creditor and pay him where he is. It has been held in a number of cases by the superior Courts that in absence of any contract to the contrary the debtor is bound to seek creditor and make the payment to him where he resides or carries on the business for gain. In the case of Sheikh Imam Ali v. Ch. Muhammad Shall PLD 1956 Lah. 341 B.Z. Kaikaus, J. (as he then was) relying on the Privy Council case of Soniram Jeetmull v. Tata & Co. AIR 1927 P C 156 has held as under:-- "This is how acceptance of the rule grants jurisdiction to the Civil Courts to entertain a suit at the place where the creditor resides. As regards the extent to which the rule is to be accepted, I may state that it is really a matter of inference as to intention of parties or as to the necessary implication of an agreement to pay. As their Lordships of the Privy Council have explained in Soniram Jeetmull v. Tata & Co., if a person says he will pay money to another, it will ordinarily mean that he would pay where the latter is. However, the circumstances of a particular case may negative any such intention or implication, and the rule is not one of universal application."
3. ' The above case has also been relied upon by Mushtaq Hussain, J. (as he then was) in the case of Messrs Nasim Salim & Co. v. M. Barkatullah PLD 1967 Lah. 928 wherein it was held:-- "17. The rule of common law that the debtor must seek the creditor and pay him where he is, is applicable to all contracts barring, of course, negotiable instruments, unless the terms 'of the contract itself explicitly or by implication provide to the contrary or the creditor lives or is residing outside the realm'. This being the rule it was for the respondent to have proved that his case fell under an exception. There is nothing on the record which could justify the exclusion of the rule on the facts of the present case."
4. ' Also in case of Kazi Noor Muhammad v. Pir Abdul Sattar Jan PLD 1959 Kar. 348 a Division Bench of this Court has held:-- "Mr. Riaz Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly not pressed before us that the Subordinate Judge at Hyderabad had no jurisdictin to try the suit. Admittedly in none of the documents the parties agreed about the place of the payment of the amount in dispute. The learned Judge in these circumstances was perfectly justified in relying on section 49 of the Contract Act and correct in holding that it is the duty of the debtor to find out the creditor, and where the parties have not stipulated the place of the discharge of the debt, it will be presumed that the amount will be paid at the place of the creditor."
5. In view of the above discussion and facts that the defendants have failed to contest the suit or rebut the claim of the plaintiffs or raise any other grounds, am of the view that the suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed. The present suit is accordingly decreed with costs as prayed.