2002 PLP 688 (MLD)

Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Respondents Nos. 10, 13 to 15 and 19 Rana Muhammad Asad Abbas for Respondent No.26 Date of hearing: 13th December, 2000. This petition assails the order, dated 15‑5‑2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. By means of the said impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the Lahore Stock Exchange and others and, as a consequence, set aside the order, dated 23‑12‑1999 passed in a suit filed by the petitioner. The facts forming the background leading upto the passing of the impugned order, have been fully set out therein and need not, therefor, be reproduced here.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on an order, dated 20‑12‑1999 passed by a learned Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1996 of 1999. The said order reads as under:‑‑ "Mr. Rashdeen Nawaz, Advocate, seeks to withdraw this civil revision with an intention to withdraw the suit from the Court of plenary 'jurisdiction and avail of remedy available before the appropriate forum for filing fresh suit. Order accordingly. Disposed of as requested/suggested."

3. The aforesaid order was passed at a preliminary hearing of Civil. Revision No.1996 of 1999, in the absence of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit, filed by the petitioner, was withdrawn by the petitioner as a result of the above referred order. He, therefore, contended that a subsequent suit was competent because the petitioner had been granted permission by the Civil Court vide its order in the first suit dated 23‑12‑1999, to file a fresh suit. It is to be noted that the said order, dated 23‑12‑1999 was also passed without notice to the respondents.

4. The learned Additional District Judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 15‑5‑2000, has placed the correct interpretation on the order, dated 20‑12‑1999 passed in Civil Revision No. 1996 of 1999. He has rightly concluded that the order, dated 20‑12‑1999 merely recorded the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge has also held, in my view correctly so, that even if the aforesaid order can be construed as permitting the petitioner to file a fresh suit, the petitioner would only be entitled to such filing subject to applicable legal provisions including those contained in Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to urge any grounds sufficient to justify interference in the impugned order. He did refer to the case of Messrs Ilamuddia & Sons v. Asghar Ali and another (1970 SCMR 233) to support his contention that the second suit, in the circumstances of the present case, was maintainable. The cited precedent, however, is clearly distinguishable on facts because it was held therein that there were certain formal defects in the suit earlier filed by the plaintiff in the said case. This is not the case in the present proceedings as the petitioner/plaintiff could, in his first suit, have filed an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading those persons as parties who have been arrayed as defendants in the second suit filed by him. There is no error on this score, in the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the defect, perceived by the petitioner/plaintiff in his earlier suit, could have been removed by invoking the provisions of Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C.

6. Based on the above discussion, no interference in the impugned order, dated 15‑5‑2000 is justified. `This petition, as a consequence, is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑03/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed