Law: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)

Section: 3,2(b),2(i)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

Law: Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973

Section: 21,23

Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)---- ----Ss. 3, 2(b) & 2(i)----Port Qasim Authority Act (XLIII of 1973), Ss.21 & 23---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Admiralty suit---Maintainability---Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court---'Charges' and Port'---Meaning---Power to detain vessels for non-payment of rates etc.---Alternative remedy by suit---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.9, C.P.C.---Plaintiff filed Admiralty suit under S.3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 against defendant-Vessel for recovery of dues and expenses, which plaintiff had incurred on behalf of the Vessel, including payment of dues to defendant-Port Authority---Defendant-Port Authority also filed Admiralty suit for recovery of its Port charges-High Court decreed both the suits, however, claim of defendant-Port Authority was held to have preference over the claims of other decree holders including plaintiff---Defendant-Vessel, having already been arrested under suit filed by other claimants, was put to auction, but amount realized from sale was less than the decretal amount of suits in question; and since, defendant had priority over the other claimants, the entire amount of sale along with profits earned therefrom, was released in its favour---Plaintiff contended that the suit filed by defendant did not fall within Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court, as S.3(2) (m) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 did not cover the 'Port charges', as the same was in respect of dock charges and equipment, which were brought for construction or repair of ship and not in respect of ships which were normally birthed or anchored within the port area, and that defendant should have invoked either provisions of Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973 or original civil jurisdiction of High Court for detaining and attachment of the Vessel, and that only principal amount, out of the amount realized from sale of the Vessel, was to be paid to defendant, and profits earned on such amount should have been distributed amongst the other claimants including plaintiff---Defendant's plea that plaintiff could not challenge and decree passed in its…