' Through this Civil Revision the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 17-2-2000, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore accepted the appeal on of the defendant/respondent against judgment and decree of trial Court dated 21-3- 1998 and as- result thereof dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.92,480 against the defendant/respondent with the contention that the parties entered into an agreement dated 27-7-1993 for providing the defendant three armed Security Guards for a period of one year with effect from 27-7-1993 on payment of Rs.9,600 per month payable on 8th of each month. The plaintiff/petitioner company provided three Security Guards as per agreement to the defendant company, but the defendant company vide letter dated 26-9-1993 informed the plaintiff that the services of said Security Guards were not required and thus unilaterally terminated the contract with effect from 8-10-1993. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that the defendant company was legally bound to retain Security Guards for a period of one year from 26-7-1993, therefore, the plaintiff company claimed a sum of Rs.92,480 at the rate of Rs.9,600 per month as charges for the services of Security Guards for remaining period of nine months and nineteen days. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Divergent pleadings of parties gave rise to the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is incompetent in view of preliminary objection No.1 of the written statement?
OPD
(2) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, if so its effect? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.92,480? OPP
(4) Relief ' The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner as prayed vide judgment and decree dated 21-3-1998. The judgment-debtor has challenged the decree of the trial Court through an appeal before District Judge. The learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 17-2-2000 accepted the appeal of the defendant/ judgment-debtor set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and resultantly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner. Hence this civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contract between the parties was for one year, therefore, the defendant/respondent could not unilaterally cancel the same without assigning sufficient cause, hence the decree passed by the trial Court was in accordance with law, while the appellate judgment is violative of the agreement. In this respect the learned counsel has referred to Clause-H of the agreement, which reads as under:-- "This contract will last for one year till 26th July, 1994 when it can be further extended with mutual agreement or else it would naturally cease to function."
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has argued that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the Appellate Court inviting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel further argued that such-like contract of services are not specifically enforceable by virtue of section 21, Clause-B of the Specific Relief Act. Further argued that at the maximum the plaintiff could claim compensation for the loss or damage caused to him by breach of contract under section 73 of the Contract Act, while the plaintiff neither claimed any compensation for the breach of contract nor proved any loss caused to him for such breach. Further argued that the defendant/respondent had informed the plaintiff vide letter dated 26-9-1993, Exh.P.4, by giving fifteen days notice that the services of the Security Guards were no more required. It is further submitted that the defendant had taken a specific plea in the letter Exh.D.2 dated 4-10-1993 as well as in letter dated 28-11-1993, Exh. D.3. Written reply to Legal Notice, that the Security Guards provided by the plaintiff were not reliable for the security of the person and property of the defendant, hence the termination of the contract was on sound basis, therefore, the learned Appellate Court has rightly set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the contract,- Exh.P.3, between the parties neither provide vide any manner for its termination of unilaterally, nor has provided any penal clause of such an act. In letter dated 26-9- 1993, Exh.P .4 , the defendant/ respondent had terminated the contract with effect from 8-10-1993, which reads as under:-- "Your services for providing gunmen are no more required from 8-10-1993.
However, in letter dated 28-11-1993, reply to legal notice, Exh.D.3, the defendant has taken specific plea that the Security Guards provided by the plaintiff were not up to the standard and also in Exh.D.2 letter dated 4-11-1993, it is mentioned that the Security Guards provided by the plaintiff were not trustworthy. Thus it is evident that the defendant had terminated the contract with 14 days clear notice, Exh.P.4, and also had explained the cause for doing so through letter dated 4-11-1993, Exh.D.2 as well as through Exh.D.3, reply to legal notice. Admittedly, neither there is any clause, which forbids either of the parties to terminate the contract nor there is any penal clause in the contact. The petitioner/plaintiffs has failed to prove any loss or damage for unilateral termination of contract by the defendant for such claim under section 27 of Contract Act. Furthermore, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence on record or any other illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Appellate Court calling for indulgence of this Court in exercise of. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this Civil Revision. It is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.