1. ' This is an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by the Defendants.
2. ' The facts forming the background of this application are that the Plaintiff M/s. Pak. Resources Insurance Co. Ltd. Has filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 1,22,911 against the Defendants. Defendant No,1 is a foreign shipping company, while Defendant No,2 is their agent in Pakistan. In 1986 one M/s. Sherzada & Co. Of Peshawar opened L.C. And imported three Containers of Bronze Glass goods valued C & F at Karachi for Pak. Rs, 3,76,489 for carriage by sea through the vessel of Defendant "LAKATOI EXPRESS". The said consignment was loaded on vessel "DEMOCRACY" by Defendant No,1, but was unloaded at Karachi by their vessel "LAKATOI" under the same Bill of Lading. Out of the three Containers two were off-loaded at Karachi Port, while the third was not landed. The said consignment was insured with the Plaintiff by the said Importer. The short landing was confirmed by K.P.T. Authorities and such certificate was issued. The Importer lodged their claim with the Plaintiff in respect of the said short-landing and after satisfying itself, it was settled at Rs,1,22,911. The Importer executed Letter of Subrogation in favour of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff lodged their claim with Defendant No, 2, who admitted the same and forwarded it to Defendant No,1. Defendant No,1 has failed to settle the claim. Hence the suit.
3. The contention of the Defendants' counsel is that even according to the plaint, the goods were short-landed at Karachi on 10-1-1987. The Short-Landing Certificate was issued by K.P.T. Authorities on 17-5-1987. According to Article 31 of the Limitation Act, a suit against the carrier for compensation for non-delivery of goods is to be filed within one year from the date when the goods ought to be delivered. Hence the suit having been filed on 7-11-1988 is filed after more than one year of both these dates. It is, therefore, time-barred. In this connection the Defendants' counsel placed reliance on a number of rulings/decisions of which two decisions are worth mention. The first is a decision by Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J. (now Chief Justice) in the case of P.N.I.C. v. P.N.S.C. Reported in 1987 M LD 698. In this case a suit was filed by the appellant Insurance Company on the basis of Letter of Subrogation issued in their favour by the consignee for recovery of money against the carrier on account of short-landing of a consignment. The vessel had arrived at Karachi on 5-9-1969 and had discharged the cargo on the same date. The Short-Landing Certificate was issued on 25-8-1970. The suit was instituted on 14-12-1971. It was held by the lower Courts that the suit was time-barred as it ought to have been filed within a period of one year from the date when the consignee had notice that goods had been short-landed or at the most when such certificate was issued. The matter came in second appeal to this Court. Relying on the case of P.N.I.C. v. P.N.S.C. Reported in 1985 CLC 360, it was held that the expression in Art. 31 of Limitation that when the goods ought to be delivered has reference to the date on which the consignee had notice that the goods could not be delivered to him, which in that case was the date on which the Short-Landing Certificate was issued by the K.P.T. On 25-8-1970 and therefore, the period of limitation for filing the suit against the respondents under Article 31 of the Limitation Act started on this date. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed and the findings of both the lower Courts were upheld. The second decision was my own which was given in the case of National Insurance Corporation v. The Kuwait National Petroleum Co. Reported in 1988 M LD 1024. In this case an application for impleading carrier as co-defendant was filed during the pendency of a suit against the consigner. It was held that the suit will be deemed to have been filed against the newly-added party on the date when he was joined. Since that date was after more than one year after the date of short-landing and also more than one year after the date of the issuance of Short-Landing Certificate, therefore, it was time-barred against the carrier/Defendant, who was proposed to be joined in the suit. The claim being time-barred, application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. Was also dismissed.
3. I am in agreement with the views taken in the above two decisions. I am, therefore, of the clear view that the consignee had notice that the goods could not be delivered to him when Short-Landing Certificate was issued by the K.P.T. Authorities. Hence the period of limitation would start running against the consignee as well as the Insurance Company, who steps into the shoes of the consignee from the date when such Short-Landing Certificate was issued. The plaintiffs counsel did not rebut the contentions of the Defendants' counsel in spite of a number of adjournments taken by him. Hence I reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
4. Plaint rejected.