| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4456 = 1965 SLD 4456 = 1965 PLD 1 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 103 of 1960 and 28 of 1961, decided on 7th September 1964.
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmed and Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, JJ
S. J. Alam for Appellant (in L. P. A. No. 103 of 1960). Ali A. Fazeel for Appellant (in L. P. A. No. 28 of 1961). A. A. Fazeel for
Respondent, (in L. P. A. No. 103 of 1960.) Waheed Faruqui for Respofident (in L. P. A. No. 28 of 1961.)
Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 103 of 1960 and 28 of 1961, decided on 7th September 1964.
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmed and Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, JJ
S. J. Alam for Appellant (in L. P. A. No. 103 of 1960). Ali A. Fazeel for Appellant (in L. P. A. No. 28 of 1961). A. A. Fazeel for
Respondent, (in L. P. A. No. 103 of 1960.) Waheed Faruqui for Respofident (in L. P. A. No. 28 of 1961.)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN------Appellant
VERSUS
Sardar MUHAMMAD ALI-Respondent
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 59
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 10
Tort-False imprisonment- Damages - Tortious act by Government servant-Government liable if it ratifies such tortious act-Suit for damages for wrongful arrest and detention against Government Officer -Plaintiff need not prove malice and want of reasonable and probable cause-Arrest and detention proved illegal-Exemplary and not nominal damages called for-Property taken into custody by Government during detention-Negligence not proved as regards its safe-keeping-Government, as bailee, not liable for any alleged loss or damage. Lalta v. Asharfi Lal A I R 1948 Oudh 135 ; Brajendra Kissore Roy Chaudhury v. L. O. Clarke 12 C W N 973 ; Pakistan v. Muhammad Yaqoob Butt and others P L D 1963 S C 627 ; Santdas Idanmal v. Province of Sind A I R 1945 Sind 93 and Rajah Pedda Vencatapa Naidoo Bahadur v. Arpovala Roodrapa Naidoo and another 2 I A 504 ref. Evidence Act (I of 1872)---S. 59-Oral evidence-Accept able only if inspiring confidence Mere fact that such evidence stands unrebutted-Not sufficient for accepting same to be true. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XXXIII, r. 10 and O. XLIV Costs-Court has discretion to mould its decree accord ing to dictates of justice-Entire Court fee, in special circumstances of case, directed to be borne by defendant-respondent. Dates of hearing : 25th 26th and 27th February 1964. JUDGMENT WAHIDUDDIN AHMED, J.----This judgment will dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No. 103 of 1960 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1961 from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Suit No. 451 of 1952 dated 11th October 1960, on the original side of this Court, in which common questions of fact and law are involved. By this judgment the claim of Sardar Muhammad Ali and others for damages was decreed in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with proportionate costs. The learned Single Judge further passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the return of the movable articles belonging to them lying in the Malkhana of the City Court. The rest of the claim in suit was dismissed with costs. Sardar Muhammad Ali one of the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1961 and his…