2004 PLP 832 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 30th January, 2001. SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 24‑3‑2000, whereby the appeal filed by State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head Rawalpindi, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Razzaq and Muhammad Ishaq sons of one Abdul Ghani, residents of Panjeri, Tehsil Bhimber, filed a civil suit alleging that their father Abdul Ghani had purchased an insurance policy of Rs.2,03,900 from the defendants in the year 1987 and he had also paid premium for one year amounting to Rs.8,

254. Thereafter, their father Abdul Ghani died in an accident and consequently, a claim for payment of the aforesaid amount of insurance policy was submitted to the defendants but despite their efforts they were not paid the amount to which they were entitled. The trial Court after taking necessary proceedings, proceeded ex parte against the State Life Insurance Corporation, respondent No. 1, and the Sector Head, respondent No.3. Thus, only State General Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, respondent No.2, remained a party as a defendant. He contested the suit but subsequently his name was also deleted from the line of defendants at the instance of the plaintiffs‑respondents on 8‑9‑1991. Thereafter, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs‑respondents amounting to Rs.2,03,

900. An appeal was filed in the High Court by the appellant, therein, challenging the said judgment and decree of the Districts Judge, inter alia, on the following grounds:‑‑ "(1) That the suit against the Corporation was not 'maintainable; (2) That the learned Court at Azad Jammu and Kashmir has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit." The High Court dismissed the appeal but while passing the impugned judgment did not deal with the above reflected points.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the appellant, that suit filed against the Corporation was not competent under the relevant law; the Corporation could be sued only through a functionary of the Corporation who under the relevant Articles of Association or the rules is competent to sue or be sued on behalf of the same. He has contended that in the instant case State Life Insurance Corporation, of Pakistan was impleaded as defendant No.1 but it was not sued through any functionary of the Corporation. He has further contended, that even the State General Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation, Rawalpindi, who was arrayed as defendant No.2, was later on deleted from the line of the defendants on the application of the plaintiffs‑respondents the ex parte proceedings were taken against the sector Head of the Corporation. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned judgment and decree could not be, passed because the suit was not properly constituted as the Corporation was not impleaded through any functionary of the same. He has further argued that a decree could not be passed in absence of a necessary party.

4. In reply, Ch. Lal Hussain, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, has referred to the Civil Procedure Code and has contended that the Corporation could be sued even without any functionary; according to the learned counsel, the Corporation being a corporate body could be sued as such without a functionary. He has also controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that judgment of the High Court was not sustainable even on merits.

5. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised and are, of the view that the above reflected point which goes to the root of the case has not been adverted to by the High Court; the questions of jurisdiction of the Court and limitation also need resolution by the High Court. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite the fact that above reflected points were, argued in the High Court, the same did not find any mention in the impugned judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Corporation could be sued without relevant functionary needs probe in view of the relevant law, and the Articles of Association, if any. We are of the opinion that so far as the question as to whether the judgments of the District Judge and the High Court are sustainable on merits or not, would also be decided when the question of proper constitution of the suit is decided one way or the other. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the same to the High Court to rehear the arguments in the appeal and decide the same afresh in the light of observations made above. H.B.T./12/SC(AJK) Appeal accepted/Case remanded.