1999 PLP 2778 (MLD)

Umer Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1998. These Revision Applications Nos.114 .of 1998, 115 of 1998, 116 of 1998, 117 of 1998 and 118 of 1998 are disposed by this single order since the facts and the point involved are common. The counsel for the parties have also agreed to dispose of the matter by this common order. By these Revision Applications the orders passed on 27-4-1998 by the III-Additional District Judge, Karachi East are challenged whereby the appeals of the petitioners have been dismissed and orders passed by the trial Court allowing the application of respondent moved under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. have been maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that suits were filed by the applicants/plaintiffs against Assistant General Manager, Karachi Telecommunication Region-1 South and General Manager, Karachi Telecommunication Region-1 South in the year 1993 and after service of the notice upon the respondents' written statements were filed, issues were framed and suits were fixed for evidence. In the meantime applications under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. were moved by the respondents to which objections were filed by the plaintiffs/applicants and impugned orders were passed after hearing the advocates for the defendant/respondent. The learned counsel argued that the date on which the impugned orders were passed, the advocate for the applicant/plaintiff was busy before the Hon'ble High Court and had sent an adjournment application which was rejected. The applicant who was present in Court even requested the Court to keep the matter aside to enable him to bring his advocate to argue out the matter before closing of Court hours but the request was declined and impugned orders were passed. The applicants filed appeals which were also dismissed. The learned counsel for the applicants have argued that the respondent were not competent to file application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. as after filing of the suit by the petitioner/plaintiff the position of respondents/defendants was changed because the P.T.C. was reconstituted as Telecommunication Company and, therefore, application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was filed and on this score alone the applications of the respondents under Order

7. Rule 11, C.P.C. were not maintainable particularly when the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiffs were neither allowed to amend the title page nor file the amended plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to non-appearance of the learned counsel of the plaintiff on the relevant date all these legal objections could not be put up before the trial Court which has resulted in passing of the impugned order and he prays for setting aside the impugned order and remand to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that he has no objection if the revision applications are allowed and the cases are remanded to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. afresh after hearing both the parties or their counsel keeping in mind all these points raised before this Court or any other legal point raised during arguments. The learned counsel appearing for the parties further request that some fixed date be given for appearance of the parties before the trial Court to avoid further delay in the matter. In view of the above circumstances and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am also of the view that it is a fit case for remand. Accordingly the order passed by the Courts below are set aside and matters are remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. afresh in the light of above observation within a period of three months as the counsel for the parties have agreed that they will not seek adjournment except for the reason beyond their control. The learned counsel for the parties have mutually agreed that they shall appear before the trial Court on 15-9-1998 and Court will proceed further in accordance with law. No further notice in respect of appearance of the parties before the trial Court is required as the learned counsel have agreed for that. These Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly alongwith the list applications. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-353/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revisions accepted.