2002 PLP 2393 (YLR)

This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8‑5‑2001 by virtue of which the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 31‑7‑2000 passed by the trial Court was dismissed.

2. Facts are that the petitioner tiled a suit for declaration against Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation through its Chairman and 4 others to the effect that E.D.P.C.O. established by the petitioner in accordance with law should not be disconnected or discontinued. It was' also prayed that defendants should be restrained from removing the V.H.F. Tower and the connected apparatus. The case came up for hearing on 10‑4‑2000 when the statement of the learned counsel for the parties was , recorded, according to which the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner stated that if the defendants do not remove the V.H.F. Tower and the Allied equipment, he was willing to withdraw his suit. This statement was admitted as correct by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants Nos.4 and

5. Consequently, vide order dated 10‑4‑2000, the , suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Later application for review of the order dated 10-4‑2000 was filed on 4‑6‑2000, in which the applicant General Manager P.T.C. Multan Region contended that defendants Nos.4 and 5 did not have authority to engage a counsel and that since there is no Wakalatnama on behalf of detendants Nos.1 to 3, the proceedings of 10‑4‑2000 were not binding upon the applicant.

4. This application was accepted vide order dated 31‑7‑2000.

5. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which culminated in the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, by virtue of which his appeal was dismissed. In this civil revision, it is contended that Divisional Engineer Phones and the Assistant Engineer Telephones had duly given power of attorney (Wakalat Nama) to Sheikh Muhammad Khalique, Advocate who is also stated to be legal advisor of P.T.C. It is submitted that Wakalat Nama is duly signed and sealed by Divisional Engineer Telephones Bahawal Nagar and Assistant Engineer Telegraph Minchanabad. He submits that the statement made by the Learned counsel was with authority and could not be challenged by the General Manager, P. T. C.

6. On the other hand, the , learned counsel for the respondent contended that no Wakalat Nama was given by the General Manager or the Chairman and the Director P.T.C. to the said counsel and therefore, any statement made on 10‑4‑2000 was without authority.

7. Be that as it may, as the learned trial Court was not able to give any decision on merits on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is in the fitness of things that the orders of the learned lower Courts setting aside the compromise order on 10‑4‑2000 is upheld. The net result would be that the suit of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the learned trial Court which shall now be decided by the trial Court strictly in accordance with law.

8. The learned trial Court shall consider all the aspects of the case. In the meanwhile the petitioner shall apply to the office of General Manager, Multan for the installation of E.D.P.C.O. which application shall be considered without any discrimination and in accordance with law. It is also expected of the General Manager, P. T. C. L. and Chairman, P. T. C. L. to ensure disciplinary action against the Divisional Engineer concerned who has allegedly acted without their approval.

9. With these observations, the , civil revision is disposed of. Order accordingly. H.B.T./M‑1440/L