P L D 1986 Karachi 446 (PLP)

One appeal under section 15, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 against order passed on distinct and separate applications is not maintainable. The appellants could not do so as they should have filed two separate appeals against the two distinct orders and even if they had paid court‑fee as payable on two separate appeals and had applied for lave to file a joint appeal against both the orders Court might not have been technical. If such appeal is entertained, it would cause loss of revenue to the State, and therefore, Court allowed option to appellant to proceed against one of the two orders passed on two distinct and separate applica tions. Appellant having declined to exercise such option, appeal was dismissed. Mansoorul Arfin for Appellants. Khalid Anwar for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th April, 1986. NAIMUDDIN, C. J.‑This is an appeal under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, from the order, dated 30‑1‑1986, passed in Suit No. 234 of 1984, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby inter alia amongst others application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., for impleading appellant No. 1 as a party to the suit and another application under Order XIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., for an injunction restraining appellant 1 from selling Nishibi Novel Brand Taxi‑Meters, were allowed and accordingly, appellant No. I was joined as a party to the suit and the injunction as prayed was issued.

2. We asked Mr. Mansoorul Arfin, learned counsel for the appellant how one appeal against orders passed on distinct and separate applications was maintainable and gave him option to maintain the appeal against one of the orders. He stated that he would press the appeal against both the orders. In our view, the appellants cannot do so as they should have filed two separate appeals against the two distinct orders and even if they bad paid court‑fee as payable on two separate appeals and had applied , for leave to file a joint appeal against both the orders, we might not have been technical. If we entertain this appeal in its present form it would cause loss of revenue to the State, and, therefore, we allowed him option to proceed against one of the two orders passed on two distinct and separate applications containing altogether different prayers but he declined to exercise the option. We, therefore, have no alter native but to dismiss this appeal and accordingly dismiss it.

3. We would, however, observe that it will be open to the appellants to file separate appeals according to taw, if they so choose. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.