' The plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration, injunction and damages in the sum of Rs,10.00 million against the defendant-Bank concisely stating in the plaint that they are businessmen,, carrying their business in medicines, export of bed-sheets and also as builders and developers. In response to a public notice got published by defendant in daily "DAWN" and "JANG" dated 6-12- 1998, inviting offers for sale of Plot bearing No,5/47, Alam Market, Saleh Muhammad Street, Karachi, they had given their offer in the sum of Rs,2,57,86,786 in the prescribed form accompanied with pay order in the sum of Rs,15,00,000 dated 24-12-1998. When the offers were opened on 26-12-1998 the offer given by the plaintiffs was highest while the other three offers given by other parties were as under:--
1. Khawaja Amir Rs.1,65,55,555
2. Arif Builders and DevelopersRs.1,20,00,000
3. Bolan Bank Ltd., Rs.50,75,000 partially for the 1st Floor.
' Further case of the plaintiffs is that without assigning any reason their highest offer in the sum of Rs,2,57,86,786 was rejected by the defendant vide their letter dated 1-1-1999 though they had arranged the balance amount, which had disturbed their other business commitments and as such they are entitled for damages. The prayers made in the plaint read as under:-- "(i) for the declaration that the plaintiffs being the highest bidder are entitled to purchase the defendants property on plot bearing No,5/47 Alam Market, Saleh Muhammad Street. Karachi and the rejection of the highest bid of the plaintiffs by the defendants is illegal and of no legal effect.
(ii) defendants may be directed to accept the highest hid of the plaintiffs.
(iii) defendants be restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction to sale or alieninte property on plot bearing No,5/47 Alam Market, Saleh Muhammad Street, Karachi, to any other person whatsoever.
(iv) and in the alternative plaintiffs be awarded Rs,10.00 million as damages from the defendants.
(v) any relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(vi) award cost of the suit".
' On service of summons defendants filed their written statement raising several legal pleas as to the maintainability of the suit. In their parawise reply to the plaint they admitted the allegations of plaintiffs with regard to their offer of public auction of Plot No,5/47, Alam Market, Saleh Muhammad Street, Karachi, receipt of offer of plaintiff and other parties and the fact that the bid of the plaintiffs though highest was rejected and they were accordingly informed .Vide letter dated 1-1-1999.
Defendant also stated in detail other actions of plaintiffs which were mala fide and had caused harassm ent and loss to the defendant Bank and its officers. They claimed dismissal of suit with special compensatory costs as provided under section 35-A, C.P.C.
' On the above pleadings of the parties following issues were framed in the suit on 10-5-1999:-
(1) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act?
(2) Whether the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed?
(3) Whether the plaint is not framed in accordance with the provision of Order 7 rule 1(t)? If so, what is the effect?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have the highest bid of Rs,2,57,86,786 to purchase the suit property owned by the defendants in terms of their Public Notice in daily DAWN and JANG dated 6-12-1998?
If so, what is the effect?
(5) Whether the defendants illegally rejected the highest bid of the plaintiffs by their letter dated 1- 1-1999? If so, what is the effect?
(6) Whether the suit is frivolous to the knowledge of plaintiffs and whether defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C. P. C .
(7) Whether the plaintiffs have made complaints to various authorities named in para 9 of the written statement'? If so, what is the effect?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs have suffered any damages in the sum of Rs,10.00 million or any other amount due to rejected of their highest bid by the defendants? If so, what is the effect?
(9) To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
' Evidence of parties was recorded on commission wherein the two plaintiffs examined themselves while from the side of defendant they examined three witnesses, Abdul Razzak, Mahboob A. Kareem and Shabbir Baxamoosa. All the witnesses were cross-examined by other, side counsel whereafter this case became ripe for final arguments in the year 2000.
' Today this case has been called thrice since morning but nobody has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs to argue this matter. However, Mr. Nafees Siddiqui, learned counsel for the defendant, advanced his arguments and contended that in this suit on 12-1-1999 an interim order was passed against the defendant whereby they were restrained from selling, transferring or alienating the property in dispute and this order was confirmed on 16-2-1999. Thus due to delay in the disposal of this suit cause by plaintiffs heavy financial loss has been suffered by the defendant which entitles them for grant of special costs. On merits of the case Mr. Siddiqui referred before me the two public notices dated 6-12-1998 published in daily "DAWN" and "JANG" to show that one of the terms for inviting such offer was that the defendant-Bank had reserved its right to reject any bid without assigning any reason. He, therefore, strongly contended that in such circumstances the plaintiffs had no locus standi or legal character to institute the present suit for seeking any relief with regard to any alleged right arising out of the offer given by them in response to such public notice. He further contended that it is well-settled principle of law that the party who had approached the Court has to stand on his own legs for grant of any relief from the Court, while in the instant suit no such evidence has been produced from the plaintiffs side which may even slightly substantiate any allegation against the defendant about their mala fide or against the plaintiff, resulting in non- acceptance of their bid or the allegation that within a short period of less than one week they had suffered any financial loss, -what to speak of loss of Rs,10.00 million. Lastly he contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case when it is established from the record that the plaintiffs have left no stone unturned in causing harassment to the defendant and its high officials then this is a fit case where the defendant-Bank is entitled for compensatory costs. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases:
4. 1974 SCMR 337 ' I have perused the case record and carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel before me. My findings on various issues framed in this suit are as under:-- ISSUES Nos.1, 2 AND 3.
' As Issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 are legal issues, therefore, same are being discussed and disposed of together.
' Perusal of case of the plaintiffs reveals that their only grievance is that since, according to them, their offer in the sum of Rs,2,57,86,786 was highest offer when bids were opened on 26-12-1998, therefore they were entitled for confirmation of such offer and consequent transfer/purchase of Plot No,5/47, Alam Market, Saleh Muhammad Street, Karachi. On facts it is an admitted position that plaintiffs had only given their offer in response to Public Notice dated 6-12-1998 which contained the clause that UBL reserves its right to reject any bid without assigning any reason and vide their letter dated 1-1-1999 offer given by plaintiffs was rejected by defendant.
' In this context the case-law referred by the learned counsel for the defendant clearly demonstrates that unsuccessful bidder or the highest bidder whose bid has been rejected has no locus standi or legal character to maintain a suit on that ground. No exception could be taken to such view which is based on sound judicial principles. However, as regards to the maintainability of this suit with reference to requirement of Order 7, rule 1(f), C.P.C., I find that on the basis of averments made in the plaint this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, Issue No,3 is answered in negative while Issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.
ISSUE No,4.
' The fact that the plaintiffs had given offer in the sum of Rs,2,57,86,786 and it was the highest offer at the time when the bids were opened on 26-9-1998 has not been disputed by the defendant.
However, in view of my findings on Issues Nos.1 and 2 same is of no significance. Issue No,4 is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No,5.
' The burden of proof of this issue is on the plaintiffs who have stated that their highest bid was rejected by the defendants without showing any reason. Such submission has no force for the short reason that it was one of the option available with the defendant-Bank in terms of the offer published in daily JANG and DAWN dated 6th December, 1998. The plaintiffs have participated in the bid subject to such condition imposed by the defendant, thus, they are estopped from challenging such right of the defendant. There is sufficient material available on D record to show that without any inordinate delay the defendant vide their letter dated 1-1-1999 intimated the plaintiffs about nonacceptance/rejection of their offer and they were further advised to collect their. Pay order in the sum of Rs,15,00,000. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that defendants had illegally rejected the offer given by the plaintiffs. Issue No,5 is, therefore, answered in negative.
ISSUE No,7.
' This issue has been framed on the specific allegations of defendant that the defendant and their officers were severally harassed by the plaintiffs by making false complaints before different authorities. Copies of such complaints, details of which are available in para 9 of the written statement, have been produced in Court during the evidence of witness, Abdul Razzak. There is no denial of such assertions from the side of plaintiffs that they had been moving such applications before the authorities concerned. Issue No,7 is, therefore, answered in affirmative.
ISSUE No,8.
' The burden of proof regarding this issue is on the plaintiffs who had alleged that after giving highest bid they had arranged payment of balance amount, thus, due to rejection of their offer heavy financial loss was caused to them. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that on one hand it has not been disputed by the plaintiffs that intimation about non-acceptance of their bid was given to them by the defendant within one week of their offer vide letter dated 1-1-1999 and on the other hand no material has been placed on record to justify such allegations of alleged loss sustained by the plaintiffs. In view of this position, I hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had suffered any loss due to rejection of their bid by the defendant or legally their claim is tenable. Issue No,8 is thus answered in negative.
ISSUE No,9.
' In the written statement the defendant have specifically stated that the whole process of bid was fair and transparent and as no bid was at all accepted by defendant, therefore, the plaintiffs had no cause of action for institution of present suit or moving other applications/ complaints, against the defendant, which was abuse of process of law and further in this mala fide manner plaintiffs had caused harassm ent to defendant and its officers. At the stage of evidence all the three witnesses examination from the defendant side have also categorically deposed the same facts, while one of the witness Abdul Razzak has also produced copies of such applications/complaints.
Such statements of the witnesses examination from the defendant side had gone unchallenged in cross-examination. Thus, it is proved that the plaintiffs are guilty of causing harassment to the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant, in this context, has also taken me through the proceedings of the present suit to show that as a result of interim order passed in this suit on 12-1- 1999, which was confirmed on 16-2-1999, great hardship and inconvenience was caused to the defendant as they were restrained from exercising their full right of ownership over their own property for over three years.
' After examining the whole case record I am satisfied that this suit is frivolous, vexatious and was filed by the plaintiffs only with the object of causing harassment to the defendant and its officers.
This view gets support from the record which shows that in the plaint the plaintiffs had nowhere stated about any demand of illegal gratification by the defendant-Bank or its officers, but at the stage of evidence an attempt was made in this regard by witness Muhammad Jamil (plaintiff No,2), who in para 11 of his affidavit in evidence alleged that defendant's officer Mahboob A. Karim, who was one of the members of property disposal committee of defendant-Bank, had demanded Rs,50,00,000 from him. Such statement was also repeated by other witnesses Younus Billoo in para 2 of his affidavit in evidence. However, such statements of these witnesses were shattered in cross- examination inasmuch as witness Muhammad Jamil admitted in his cross-examination that the members of property disposal committee of defendant-Bank had only asked him for improvement of bid and not for any bribe. The statement of other witness Younus Billoo in this context also stood belied from the fact that he had alleged that such incident occurred on 19-12-1998, when even bid/offer was not submitted by the plaintiffs.
' In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the suit is liable to be dismissed with special compensatory cost. This issue is accordingly answered in affirmative. ISSUE No,10 ' In view of the above discussion suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with special costs of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousand only).