1. ' By the revision application, the applicant has challenged a common judgment dated 15-11-2000 passed by the learned III-Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No,37 of 2000, 41 of 2000 and 42 of 2000 by which the Civil Appeal No,37 of 2000 filed by the applicant was dismissed while Civil Appeal No,41 of 2000 filed by respondent No, I . Siddiq Moti was allowed and suit of the applicant against this respondent 'was dismissed and Civil Appeal No,43 of 2000 filed by respondent No,2 Ahmed Habib was disposed of with modification of judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the amount of decree was increased to Rs,2,65,000 but the relief of currency devaluation adjustment of 10% per annum and cost was disallowed.. While the three appeals have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 15-11-2000 decrees in the three appeals have however, been drawn up separately which are also under challenge.
2. ' The facts of the matter are that applicant -has filed Suit No,409 of 1990 in this Court for recovery of Rs,4,50,000 against the present respondents. It appears that the suit was transferred to the Civil Court on account of change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. In the plaintiff has alleged that his late father was engaged in the business of selling and purchasing of shares of various companies and during his life time has purchased shares in the name of the applicant. In 1986 applicant approached the respondent No,2 for the sale of the shares in his name. The .Respondent No,2 represented himself as an authorized agent of the respondent No, 1 . Both respondents Nos.1 and 2 asked the applicant to do share business with them and respondent No,1 appeared to have allowed the respondent No,2 to deal in connection with such business with the applicant on his behalf. Some transactions were made by the applicant with the respondent No,1 relating to sale and purchase of shares. The applicant sold number of shares to respondent No,1 but the formalities for completion of the transaction were completed between the applicant and respondent No,2. The applicant made payment to the respondents as is mentioned in para 5 of the plaint amounting to Rs,4,03,000 for which amount, respondents have undertaken to the applicant to purchase profitable shares for him. It is further alleged in the plaint that respondents have removed from the hand bag of the applicant 1104 shares of National Refinery as such bag was left by the applicant unattended for a short period on the table of the respondent. The applicant lodged protest and claim with the respondents for the removal of such shares but to no avail. The applicant however,: learned that the shares removed from his bag were sold by the respondents. The applicant's representation to various agencies in this respect also did not bore any fruit. The applicant has therefore, claimed a sum of Rs,4,50,000 from respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 14% from the date of the suit till realization and costs. Legal notice in this respect was sent by the applicant to the respondents. The respondents contested the suit and filed their separate written statements. It was stated in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable, the .Applicant has no cause of action and that the suit was time-barred. On merits, the respondent No:l took the stand that he has no concern with the respondent No,2 and that the applicant has falsely implicated the respondent No,1 in the matter. The notice of the applicant dated 17-4-1988 was replied vide letter dated 24-4-1988. The respondent No,1 denied the claim and allegations made against him in the plaint and asked for dismissal of the suit. Respondent No,2 in his written statement on merits also took the stand that he has not introduced the applicant with the respondent No,1 nor he has any concern with the said respondent No,l. The respondent No,2 stated that the applicant has dealt with him all along and the applicant has falsely implicated the respondent No,1 in the matter. The respondent No,2 further took the stand that he never made false representation to the applicant. The respondent No,2 stated that the applicant is known to him since 1984 when he used to sit in the office of A. Razzaq A. Sattar, Member, Karachi Stock Exchange where the applicant has approached him for sale of certain pieces and such pieces were sold and payment was made to the applicant through cheques. This respondent admitted that an amount of Rs,2,20,000 was received by him by way of three cheques from the applicant as alleged in para 5 of the plaint but the amount of Rs,1,83,000 was not received by him and such allegations in para 5 of the plaint are false. This respondent further stated that the applicant has handed over to him certain shares of National Refinery, Zeal Pak Cement and of some two or three Companies which were of the value of Rs,45,000 and these shares were sold by this respondent on the instruction of the applicant and the amount is also payable by respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 further stated in his written statement that applicant before issuing legal notice to him had lodged a complaint with C.I.A. Where the respondent No,2 was called and his statement was recorded and he admitted receipt of Rs,2,20,000 in the presence of the C.I.A. And the respondent No,2 paid a sum of Rs,10,000 to the applicant and promised to pay further amount in instalments as and when his business improved. He has stated that the applicant has suppressed the fact of receiving Rs,10,000.
3. It is further stated that the applicant also lodged a complaint with Kharadar Police Station where the respondent No,2 was also called and his statement recorded. It is further stated that the applicant did not make any allegation either to the CIA or to the Kharadar Police Station about the payment of Rs,1,83,000 in cash and that for the first time this amount was mentioned by him in his legal notice dated 5-3-1990. This respondent admitted his liability to the extent of Rs,2,10,000 and Rs,45,000 total Rs,2,55,000. This respondent denied claim of the applicant to interest and ultimately has stated that he is willing to pay Rs,2,55,000 in easy monthly instalments. The claim of the applicant to the tune of Rs,4,50,000 was denied. The trial Court framed issues and, thereafter, recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing advocates of the parties passed judgment and decree dated 31-1-2000 by which the applicant's suit was decreed for Rs,2,55,000 against respondents Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally alongwith acceleration currency de-valuation adjustment at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and cost.
4. Against this judgment and decree of the trial Court the applicant, respondent No,1 and respondent No,3 separately filed appeals which appeals were disposed of by the impugned judgment.
5. ' I have heard the applicant who has appeared in person and Mr. M. Ameen Memon, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 and Mr. Abdul Lateef Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,2. Applicant has argued that both the Courts below have misread the evidence in not allowing full claim for the applicant and the Appellate Court has without any valid justification and illegally 'allowed the appeal, of the respondent No,l. The applicant has further argued that he was entitled to appropriate compensation from both respondents by way of interest as claimed by him in the suit and costs. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have argued that the present revision application is not maintainable as neither there is any misreading of evidence nor any jurisdictional error committed by the two Courts below nor there is any illegality in the impugned judgment. Both the learned counsel have argued that there is concurrent findings by the two Courts below insofar as the amount claimed by the applicant which is based on evidence on the record and the applicant's claim for further amount is not proved from the evidence on record. They have supported the impugned judgment and prayed for the dismissal of this revision application.
6. ' I have considered the arguments of the applicant as well as of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have gone through the record. The applicant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs,4,50,000 the, break up of such amount has been given in para 5 of the plaint which is of Rs,4,03,000 plus the value of shares alleged to have been stolen from the applicant. The applicant has also claimed 14% interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization and cost of the suit.
7. The respondent No,1 has in its written statement has all together denied his liability and has stated that he did no business with the applicant and the suit against him was not maintainable.
8. Respondent No,2 in his written statement has admitted that he has done business with the applicant and that he has received from the applicant Rs,2,20,000 by three cheques and that the applicant has handed over to him certain shares of National Rifineries. Zeal Pak Cement Factory and of some other companies having the value of Rs,45,000 which were sold by the respondent No,2 on the instruction of the applicant and such amount is also payable by the respondent No,2.
9. The respondent No,2 has stated that the applicant has lodged complaint with the CIA and during the course of enquiry, the respondent No,2 while admitting liability of Rs,2,20,000 has promised the applicant of making payment in instalments and a sum of Rs,10,000 was paid by him. Respondent No,2 in para 5 of his written statement has admitted that he is liable to pay to the applicant Rs,2,10,000 and Rs,45,000 total Rs,2,55,000. The respondent No,2 has denied receipt of payment of Rs,1,83,000 alleged to be paid by the applicant to the respondents in cash. The trial Court relying upon the admission of the respondent No,2 with regard to his liability to the extent of Rs,2,55,000 decreed the suit of the applicant to the extent of this amount. The Appellate Court also relying upon the admission of the respondent No,2 has decreed the applicant's suit in the sum of Rs,2,65,000. The difference of Rs,10,000 in the decretal amount seems to have occurred form the fact mentioned in the .Written statement of the respondent No,2 that before the C.I.A. He has paid to the applicant a sum of Rs,10,000 as an instalment towards repayment of the amount of Rs,2,65,000 admitted by him to be payable to the applicant. The respondent No,2 in his examination-in-chief has admitted his liability to words the applicant to the extent of Rs,2,65,000 and has also stated that he has made payment of Rs,10,000 in cash to the applicant and thus admitted liability to the extent of Rs,2,55,000 which he has stated that he is willing to pay to the applicant in instalments. There is no cross-examination of the respondent No,2 on the payment of Rs,10,000 to the applicant. In this view of the matter, it appears that the respondent No,2 has paid the amount of Rs,10,000 to the applicant towards his admitted liability of Rs,2,65,000 and that the balance of his admitted liability was Rs,2,55,000. Both the Courts have not considered this evidence on the record. However, the trial Court has decreed the suit in the sum of Rs,2,55,000 which as per record appears to be the correct amount and not that of the Appellate Court that is of Rs,2,65,000.
10. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the applicant has not been able to prove payment of Rs,1,83,000 in cash to either of the respondents. I have gone through the evidence on the record and find that such concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based on record as the applicant has not produced any evidence to support his claim in respect of the alleged payment of Rs,1,83,000. The trial Court has decreed the suit of the applicant against respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with finding that the respondent No,2 was the agent of the respondent No,1 and, therefore, respondent No,1 was liable for acts, deed and transactions undertaken by the respondent No,2. The Appellate Court in its judgment has found that as respondent No,2 has admitted the liability, the relationship between respondent Nos.1 and 2, if any was of no consequence. The Appellate Court has, therefore, decreed the suit only against respondent No,2 and has dismissed the suit against the respondent No,l. I have gone through the evidence on the record. In my view the finding given by the Appellate Court about the liability of the respondent No,1 is not consistent with the evidence on record. The applicant in his plaint has stated that with regard to the business of shares, he came in contact with the respondent No,2 who took him to the office of the respondent No,1 and there the respondents Nos.1 and 2 both offered him to do business of shares with the applicant and the respondent No,1 represented the respondent No,2 to be his agent. The applicant has further alleged that, thereafter he has conducted business of shares with the respondent No,2 as an agent of the respondent No,1 and all the business of shares was conducted through the office of the respondent No,1 who was member of the Karachi Stock Exchange. The applicant in his evidence also stated that the respondent No,2 acted as an employee/agent of the respondent No,1. The applicant has produced Exhibit 6, the visiting card of the respondent No,2 in which his address and telephone number are those of the respondent No, 1.
11. Applicant has further produced exhibit 10 which is a Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd. Agents Entry Pass of the respondent No,2 on which the name of the member is written that of ,respondent No, 1.
12. Applicant has produced exhibit 8 and 9 which are the two receipts in the name of applicant. Such receipts are of respondent No,
1. Applicant has examined one Naushad Shafqat, Joint Secretary (Legal), Stock Exchange Karachi as Exhibit 22 who has produced membership record of agent of respondent No, 1 . Exhibit 23 is a letter of the respondent No,1 addressed to the Secretary of the Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd. By which the respondent No,1 has sought appointment of the respondent No,2. Has his agent for doing of business on the exchange on his behalf and in his name only. Exhibit 24 is a letter of the Karachi Stock Exchange by which it has allowed appointment of respondent No,2 as accredited agent of the respondent No,1 only. Exhibit 25 is a copy of Register of Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd. In which the name of accredited agents of respondent No,1 are mentioned. The name of the respondent No,2 appears for the year 1985-86. The name of the respondent No,2 also appears for the year1986-87 in Exhibit 26. Further the name of the respondent No,2 appears in Exhibit 27 being from 11-12-1987 to 30-6-4 988. From these Exhibits, it is clear that the respondent No,2 was an officially appointed agent of the respondent No,
1. The respondent No,1 in his evidence has also admitted that the respondent No,2 was his agent from 1985-86 and 1986-
87. The respondent No,2 as per terms of this appointment as mentioned in Exhibits 23 and 24 was an exclusive agent of the respondent No, 1 . The applicant has made payment by cheque on 29-9- 1987 of Rs,1,10,000, on 6-1-1987 by cheque of Rs,I0,000 and on 15-2-1988 by pay order of Rs,1,00,000.
13. The respondent No,2 has admitted payment of these sums by the applicant. The respondent No,2 has further admitted selling of shares of the applicant of the value of Rs,45,000. All these transactions the respondent No,2 has conducted with the applicant as agent of the respondent No,
1. Section 226 of the Contract Act provides as follows:-- "226. Enforcement and consequences of agent's contracts:---Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into, and the acts done by the principal in person."
14. ' From the reading of the above provision of section 226 of the Contract Act, it is clear that where the contract is entered into through an agent and obligations arising from acts done by an agent will be enkorced in the same manner and will have same consequences as if the contract made and acts done by the principal in person. In other words the principal will be liable for the contract made and acts done by the agent.
15. ' Respondent No,2 in his written statement as well as in his evidence has made admission of liability. Article 31(1) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat is as follows:-- "31. Admission by party to proceedings on his agent etc.---(1) Statement made by a party to the proceedings, or by an agent to any such party whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them are admission".
16. ' The reading of the above Article 31(1) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat shows that statement made by an agent where the Court regards as expressly or impliedly authorized him to make by a party are admission. In the present case, Exh.24, letter of Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd. Issued on the request of respondent No,1, the Member of the said Stock Exchange Exh.23, clearly shows that the respondent No,2 was appointed accredited agent for doing of business on the Exchange on behalf of respondent No,1 only. In Exh.23 the respondent No,1 has undertaken responsibility for all the dealings and transactions of the respondent No,2. There is nothing in these two exhibits to read any limitation on the power of the respondent No,2 in dealings and transactions on behalf of respondent No,1 or any limitation on the responsibility of the respondent No,1 arising from the acts done by the respondent No,2. Thus the admission of the respondent No,2 will come within purview of Article 31(1) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat and will be binding on the respondent No,l.
17. ' In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the respondent No,2 was the agent of the respondent No,1 and that in respect of the business of shares undertaken between the applicant and the respondent No,2, the respondent No,1 being the principal was primarily liable for the payment of amount claimed by the applicant. In this view of the matter I find that judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit was decreed jointly and severally against respondents Nos.1 and 2 was in accordance with law and the judgment of the Appellate Court in this respect was not in accordance with law.
18. ' The applicant has contended that he is entitled to payment of interest as claimed by him. It is found that the trial Court in its judgment and decree has allowed as compensation acceleration of currency devaluation adjustment at, the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on the decretal amount alongwith cost. The Appellate Court in its judgment and decree has found that such compensation was not supportable in law and therefore, set aside the same.
19. The Appellate Court also set aside the order of granting of cost. In my view, as the applicant has been admittedly deprived of his money thus, he is entitled to an appropriate compensation alongwith the decretal amount. In my view, the applicant is entitled to the grant of interest which I do grant at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization. The Appellate Court has not given any reason for not allowing the cost. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to cost.
20. ' In this view of the matter, the judgment and decrees of the Appellate Court by which the appellant's appeal was dismissed and that respondent No, 1 appeal was allowed and that the respondent No,2's appeal was disposed of by modification of decree are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is maintained with modification that in place of acceleration of currency devaluation adjustment at the rate of 10% the relief of 10% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization is allowed. This revision application to the above extent is allowed. Pursuant to the order passed on 23-2-2002, the respondent, No,2 has deposited with the Nazir an amount of Rs,50,000 towards payment of admitted liability. Applicant shall be paid by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 the balance amount of decretal sum after the adjustment of Rs,50,000 deposited in this Court.