It is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,752,153,000 as damages against the defendants on the allegations that due to lack of ample running finance the plaintiff mills suffered heavy losses for which as per contents of the plaint, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were responsible.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it could avail running finance facility from defendant No. 7, but defendants Nos. 1 to 6 failed to issue No Objection Certificate. It is thus, averred that lack of co- operation by defendants Nos. 1 to 6 with the plaintiff resulted into financial losses to the plaintiff apart from mental torture. The break-up of the alleged damages is stated in paragraph No.3 of the plaint.
3. Summonses were issued by the Court in response to which petition for leave (P.L.A. No. 70-B of 2000) has been filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and P.L.A. No. 72-B of 2000 by defendant No.7.
4: In support of petition for leave to appear and defend the suit, it is contended by the learned counsel that there is no cause of action for filing a suit by the plaintiff, the same is mala fide and the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; that there was no valid basis for the claim of damages which is based on incorrect assertions and concocted material and that it is indeed the plaintiff, who is liable to pay the amount due from him for the facilities availed by it.
Reliance has been placed on Messrs Qureshi Salt & Spices Industries, Khushab and another v.
Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi through President and 3 others (1999 SCM R 2353) to contend that in a suit for damages the plaintiff is required to prove his case and the defendant is also entitled to the grant of leave for his defence.
5. The learned counsel for defendant No.7 contends that no relief has been claimed against the said defendant and has merely been sued as pro forma.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has pressed into service the contents of the plaint in order to show that the plaintiff has a good case for the grant of damages, however, was not in a position to contradict the legal position that in a suit for damages, ordinarily leave to appear and defend the suit is to be granted to the defendants.
7. A suit for the grant of damages stands slightly on different footings than an ordinary suit for recovery of amount based on negotiable instruments and other material. It is for the plaintiff in such a suit to prove that damages were caused and occasioned on account of acts and omissions of the defendants. The defendant is also entitled to controvert the adverse allegations and to defend himself. In a suit of this nature, the initial burden remains on the plaintiff to prove his case for the grant of damages 2s also its quantum. In this view of the matter reliance of learned counsel for defendants Nos. 1 to 6 on Messrs Qureshi Salt & Spices Industries case (supra) is not without substance and has relevance.
8. There appears serious and bona fide dispute having arisen in the matter for determination of the respective contentions of the parties. I am therefore, inclined to grant leave to appear and defend the suit to the defendants. Accordingly petitions (P.L.A. No.70-B of 2000 and-P.L.A. No.72-B of 2000) are allowed and disposed of. Let the defendants file written statement with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who may file replication if so desired before the next date of hearing.