P L D 1969 Dacca 946 (PLP)

MAKSUM‑UL‑HAKIM, J.‑The facts giving rise to this revisional application are as follows : the opposite‑party instituted a suit numbered as other Suit No. 45 of 1965 in the Court of the Additional Judge, Chittagong, against the petitioners for recovering compensation and for accounting for the period of Management by their predecessor. The suit was instituted in April 1963 and considerable time was taken for completing its preliminary steps. On 14‑11‑66 the petitioners filed a petition claiming that the plaintiff‑firm has its registered office at Calcutta in India and as such due to the promulgation of the emergency and the enactment of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, it has become an enemy firm and as such the suit cannot proceed without the permission from the Head of the State of Pakistan as required under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 28‑12‑66 the learned Additional Subordinate Judge by his Order No. 57 rejected the petition holding that Mr. M. K. Das Barman who is appointed agent by the Pakistan Tea Board is legally entitled to continue the suit. The petitioners have challenged this order of the learned Subordinate Judge in this revisional application. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that a permission under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code is required for the continuance of the suit. The opposite‑party, however, has resisted this contention by filing a counter‑affidavit, and contends that under the circumstances of this case no specific permission of the Central Government under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code is necessary. It is admitted by both the parties that Pakistan Tea Board was appointed by the Central Government as the Custodian of all the enemy tea estates in Pakistan. Rule 182 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 authorised to the Central Government to appoint a custodian of an enemy property for the purpose of prosecution and management of the affairs of such a firm. It also appears that the Pakistan Tea Board by its Notification No. 9783 dated 29‑8‑65 appointed Mr. M. K. Das Barman, Joint Receiver and Manager of Patiya Tea Estate to carry on the Management of the Patiya Tea Estate. Sub‑clause (2) (iv) of clause 4 of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, lays down that the custodian or any person authorised by him is entitled to institute, defend or continue any suit or other legal proceedings as may be considered necessary for preserving the property of such a firm. This Enemy Property (Custodian and Registration) Order, 1965, was promulgated by the Central Government under sub‑rule (1) of Rule 182 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The Defence of Pakistan Rules were promulgated by the Central Government on the authority of section 3 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965. Section 4 of the said Ordinance runs as follows: ‑ "Any rule made under section 3, and any order made under any such rule, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Ordinance or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Ordinance." From the terms of the above section it is abundantly clear that in case of a conflict the provisions of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, will prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In that view of the matter it is obvious that an agent appointed by the Custodian does not A require a specific permission from the Central Government in prosecuting legal proceeding for and on behalf of an enemy firm. In the above view of the matter, we find that there is no substance in the Rule and the Rule is discharged with costs. M. R. KHAN, J.‑‑I agree. A, E. Rule discharged.