COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS vs ESMAIL ABDUL SATTAR & Brother
This petition arises out of a civil suit for the refund of money deposited as the price of blankets and for the recovery of damages due to the petitioner's failure to supply goods in accordance with the contractual sample. The suit was decreed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, which found that Exhibit 69 was the correct sample and held that the goods did not agree with it. The petitioner challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the High Court ignored material facts and seeking a reappreciation of evidence, while also disputing the basis for the assessment of damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's finding on the sample was based on cogent evidence and that the Supreme Court will not undertake its own appreciation of evidence. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that where a particular criterion, such as a forward contract, is available for assessing damages, it should form the basis rather than the market price.
- Will the Supreme Court undertake a reappreciation of evidence to determine a question of fact already decided by the High Court?
- What should form the basis for the calculation of damages when a particular criterion is available?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition arises out of a suit for refund of money deposited as price of blankets and for recovery of damage on account of the petitioner's failing to supply the blankets to the respondents in accordance with the sample which formed the basis of the contract between them. The suit was decreed by the then High Court of West Pakistan Karachi Bench. The petitioner has now impugned before us the order of the High Court on the ground that that Court did not take into consideration certain material facts in coming to its findings that Exh. 69 was the sample in question. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has in this connection drawn our attention to certain papers contained in the paper book of the High Court in order to show that the Exh. 69 was not the sample in question. These papers, which have not been annexed to the present petition, did not, in our opinion, support the petitioner's contention. The High Court has given cogent reasons based on evidence in support of its finding that Exh. 69 was the sample in question. What the learned Advocate, however, wants is that we should make our own appreciation of the evidence in the case. This is outside our function.
2. It is admitted, however, that the goods did not agree with the sample Exh. 69 which has been found by the High Court to be the sample in question.
3. We have also been addressed on the question of damage. It has been contended that the basis for the damage should have been the market rate instead of the respondent's forward con- R tract in respect of the said blankets. Our short answer to this is that where a particular criterion is available that should form; the basis of the damage and not the market price.
4. There is no substance in this petition, it is accordingly dis--missed.