MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. - A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5233.38, against Pakistan Railway, was filed by the appellant claiming that he has booked five bales of Art Satin Cloth through respondent in passenger train from Karachi to Lahore. At the time of delivery, it was found that one bale weighing 3 maunds and 6 seers was missing.
2. This suit was resisted by the Pakistan Railway and took up the defence that the said bale had been stolen during transit am1 there was no negligence on the part of the Railway, who had taken due care of the goods as a bailee. The Trial Court framed four issues and decreed the suit of the petitioner on 28.3.1975. On appeal tiled by the Pakistan Railway, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed on 18.1.1978.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is erroneous and is due to misreading of the evidence. It is argued that the admitted position on the record is that the appellant had booked five bales and at the time of delivery to him, one bale was missing, therefore, Pakistan Railway as a bailee was liable to make good the loss suffered by the appellant on account of above missing bale.
4. On the other had, learned D.A.G., has stated that the Appellate Court had duly considered the entire evidence on the record and has found that the missing of the bale was not due to any negligence or lack of due care by the Railway. Respondent had taken due care as could be done by prudent man. Evidence led by the parties has not only been considered but discussed by the Appellate Court as well. Findings of the Appellate Court that the bale was stolen as a result of lerceny in the running train and not due to any pilferage by the employees of the railway is substantiated from the record. Railway had duly locked the compartment in which the goods were lying and it was discovered that the bale had been stolen at 31 miles from Haiderabad Station.
Moreover, a case was registered against this theft and during the investigation, the police has recovered the bale and had been produced in the Court as well, This bale was available and could have been received by the appellant. However, the appellant did not tum up to take back the missing bale.
5. I have also examined the record and find that Pakistan Railway has taken due care and there is no negligence on its part. The bale had been stolen after breaking the locks during its transit from Haiderabad onward. On discovery, Pakistan Railways, had duly pursued the matter and got a case registered against the culprit and the stolen goods were recovered.
6. Besides, the appellant after attaining knowledge of recovery of stolen bale could have approached the Court where it was lying but admittedly, he did not do so and filed the instant suit against the respondent.
7. In view of above, 1 do not find any legal infirmity or mis-reading of the record by the Appellate Court, therefore, this appeal has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.