K.M.C. Versus LAL MUHAMMAD

ORDER

1. This is a civil revision application under section 115 of C.P.C. directed against the judgment and decree dated 9‑9‑1996 passed by IV‑Additional District Judge, Karachi‑South, in Civil Appeals Nos.42 of 1995 and 37 of 1995 KMC and another v. Lal Muhammad and Lal Muhammad v. KMC and another, whereby judgment and decree passed by VI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi‑South, in Suit No. 1115 of 1989 dated 30‑1‑1995 were maintained hence this revision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Lai Muhammad filed suit for recovery of Rs.99,516 against K.M.C. and Deputy Director, Zoological Garden on the ground that an amount of Rs.3,08,750 was deposited by him being 1/4th of bid money for Rs.12,35,000 towards entry fee in the Zoological Garden, K.M.C. in open auction but the said contract was not finally approved by Government of Sindh on 21‑7‑1988 and an amount of Rs.3,08,750 was refunded on 23‑8‑1989 with the delay of two and a half years from the date of deposit of amount. According to statement in plaint in the first instance, K.M.C. had recommended the offer of the respondent on 9‑2‑1987 being highest and forwarded the same for confirmation to the Government of Sindh where it remained pending and ultimately it was not confirmed/approved as per letter, dated 21st July, 1988. The respondent has filed suit for recovery of Rs.99,516 against the applicants on the ground that his 1/4th amount of Rs.3,00,750 out of total bid money of Rs.12,35,000 was refunded after two and a half years and if he had kept or invested the said amount with the bank he could have earned at least‑10% of profits over the said amount which would come to Rs.83,516 plus an amount of Rs.16,000 as damages.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the two Courts below have erred in awarding interest of 14 % over the amount of Rs.3,08,750 for one year. Counsel for the applicants further contends that as there was no prayer in the plaint with regard to the interest, therefore, the both Courts below could not have granted interest.

4. There are concurrent findings of two courts below and their has been no misreading and non‑reading of the evidence on record. The Court has decreed the specific amount claimed towards the profits which ordinarily respondent could have earned on the amount which was deposited by him which was delayed in repayment of the applicants. So far the damages the both Courts have disallowed and the Appeal No.37 of 1995 filed by the respondent was also dismissed. So far the grant of interest granted by both Courts below, there appears nothing wrong to such finding. Reference may be made to a case Pakistan Railways v. Javed Iqbal (1995 SCMR 446) wherein it was held that plaintiff though did not claim interest, yet Court in the interest of justice would be competent to grant the same as ancillary relief.

5. I do not find merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, consequently the revision application is dismissed in limine alonghwith listed application.

6. A.A./K‑34/K Petition dismissed.