1999 PLP 2060 (YLR)

S. Shabbar Maqbool Zaidi for Petitioner. Sarwar Khan, A. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Khalil ur Rehman for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1999. S.A. RABBANI, J.‑‑‑The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 1042 of 1993 against respondent No.3 in the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East. The Senior Civil Judge admitted the suit and his order of admission of the suit was challenged before the' District Judge, Karachi East in Civil Revision No.27 of 1993. The learned District Judge, Karachi East allowed the revision and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under section 70 of the Societies Act, 1925 and was also hit by the section 6 of the Societies Registration Act. Against the order in this revision, this petition was filed. This petition was filed in 1993 and an order for maintaining status quo was obtained. Since then the matter is pending as adjournments were sought on the dates of hearing on one ground or the other, including personal grounds of the advocate for the petitioner. On the last date of hearing also Mr. Rafi, Advocate holding brief for advocate for the petitioner filed an application for adjournment to a date after summer vacation on the health ground of the advocate for petitioner. Since the matter was very old and was lingering on unnecessarily, the learned advocate was directed to take time till 1st June to argue the matter, but he submitted that he would not be prepared for arguments and the matter may be decided. We heard Mr. Khalil ur Rehman on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr. Sarwar Khan learned Additional Advocate‑General for official respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner has already filed Suit No.912 of 1996 in the High Court on the same subject. He further submitted that this respondent has filed a suit for possession against the present petitioner, which is not proceeding because of status quo in the present petition. Learned Additional Advocate‑General adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Khalil ur Rehman and urged that the petition is not maintainable. The petition is not maintainable for the reason that in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. adequate remedy has been provided in Rule 13 of Order VII, C.P.C. and plaintiff/petitioner could have filed a fresh plaint after removing defects in the plaint pointed out by the learned District Judge in the impugned order, and also because remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not available in the cases where the Legislature has intentionally omitted to provide a forum with the view to putting an end to litigation at a particular stage. Omission of a stage of appeal from an order passed in revision does not open the door for a remedy under Article 199. It is available only in the cases where the omission is not with the object to put an end to litigation at a particular stage. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑80/K Petition dismissed.