' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--The background leading to the filing of the above mentioned matters are that about 130 employees of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board including petitioner Tara Chand (in Civil Review Petition No,259 of 2002) and applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadullah Saher (In Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.874 and 875 of 2001) challenged the orders, dated 11-7-1998, 18-7-1998 and 20-7-1998 passed by Vice Chairman about retrenchment and termination of their services through Constitution Petition No,D- 1151 of 1998 before the learned High Court of Sindh at Karachi. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment, dated 4-6-1969 by the learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi. The said judgment was challenged in Civil Petition Nos.352-K, 396-K and 464-K of 1999 in which leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were numbered as Civil Appeals Nos.1232 to 1235 of 2000. In the aforesaid appeals, petitioner Tara Chand and applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadullah Saher were arrayed as respondents. After grant of leave to appeal, the notices were issued to them but were not served upon them and an ex parte order was passed by the Assistant Registrar (Civil) against them on 13-3-2001. However, above appeals were heard and allowed by this Court vide judgment, dated 14-5-2002 and the orders, dated 11-7-1998, 18-7-1998 and 20-7-1998 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Board were set aside and were declared without lawful authority. All the appellants therein were reinstated in service.
2. On coming to know about the above decision, petitioner Tara Chand along with Javed Hussain, Muhammad Shah, Kanyolal, Muhammad Hanif Shaikh, Abdul Shakoor, Mujahid Hanif and Muhammad Iqbal Palejo filed Review Petition No,259 of 2002 on 11-6-2002 wherein they urged that in fact they were respondents in the aforesaid Civil appeals but were not served, as such, ex parte order passed against them in their absence be set aside and they may be allowed the same relief as granted to appellants.
3. However, the aforesaid Civil Review Petition was returned by Assistant Registrar (Civil) on 13-3- 2001 to the Advocate-on-Record with the objection that the same was not entertainable under Order XXVI rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as the counsel who had drawn this review petition did not appear and argue the case in the above mentioned appeals. The said order was challenged through Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,42 of 2003 under Order V rule 33 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which was allowed only to the extent of petitioner Tara Chand were as against others, it was dismissed for non-prosecution by a learned Judge in Chambers, vide order, dated 20-11-2003. Petitioner Tara Chand filed amended review petition whereas applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef., Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadullah Saher moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No,874 of 2001 for setting aside the order, dated 13-3-2001 as Civil Miscellaneous Application No,875 of 2001 for transposition from the side of respondents to the side of appellants.
4. We have heard Messrs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner, M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for applicants and Messrs Ibrar Hussain and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocates Supreme Court for the respondents and have gone through the record and proceedings in minute particulars.
5. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Advocate Supreme Court, contended that in fact petitioner Tara Chand was arrayed as respondent No,47 in Civil Appeal No,1235 of 2000. According to him, neither notice about grant of leave to appeal nor that of ex parte order, dated 13-6-2001 was served upon him. Admittedly, he was one of the petitioners who impugned the departmental orders of retrenchment and termination before the learned High Court of Sindh, which were set aside in appeal by this Court. The moment he came to know about the decision, he approached this Court and filed above mentioned civil review petition well within time. Though he is a non- appealing party in the aforementioned appeals, yet is entitled to the same relief on the basis of principle of rule of equality. In support, he relied upon the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCM R 1185.
6. Mr. M. Bilal, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadullah Saher contended that the applicants were also the petitioners before the learned High Court of Sindh and had challenged the departmental orders passed against them. They were also arrayed as respondents Nos. 50, 58, 92 and 104 in Civil Appeal No,1235 of 2000 before this Court, which was allowed. Their matter is identical on all aspects with those appellants, therefore, deserves the same relief.
7. On the other hand, Messrs Ibrar Hussain and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate Supreme Courts, vehemently opposed the above contentions and argued that the judgment of this Court passed in the aforesaid civil appeals was in fact judgment in personam and not in rem, as such, the petitioner and applicants are not entitled to any relief. According to them, this being a service matter, they should have approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance which jurisdiction was not invoked by them.
8. Admittedly, petitioner Tara Chand and applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadullah Saher had challenged the orders, dated 11-7-1998, 18-7-1998 and 20-7-1998 of their retrenchment and termination along with other petitioners in writ petition before learned High Court of Sindh. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner and applicants were arrayed as respondents in Civil Appeal No,1235 of 2000 before this Court wherein the above said order of learned High Court was challenged. Since the services of all of them were dispensed with by single order, as such, there is no distinction in between their case and that of appellants and is identical on all fours.
9. As to whether impugned judgment is 'judgment in personam' or `judgment in rem', it would be appropriate to reproduce their definitions as defined in various dictionaries:
(I) The Oxford Companion to Law by David M. Walker ' Judgment in personam.--- A judgment determining the rights of persons intense in or to any money or property in dispute, but not affecting the status of persons or things or determining any interest in property except between the parties. They include all judgments for money.
' Rem, Judgment in.--- A legal determination binding not only the parties but all persons. It applies particularly to judgments in Admiralty, declaring the status of a ship, matrimonial causes, grants of probate and administration and condemnation of goods by a competent Court.
(II) K.J. Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary (10th Edition 1988)
' Normally a judgment binds only those who are parties to it. Such judgments are known as Judgments in personam.
' Rem, Judgment in.--- A judgment which gives to the successful party possession or declaration of some definite right which right is available against the whole world.
(III) Words and Phrases legally defined (Vol. 3 I-N)
' Judgment, In personam.--- A judgment in personam or inter parties are those which determine the rights of parties inter se to or in the subject-matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but do not affect the status of either persons or things, or make any disposition of property or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties litigant. They include all judgments which are not judgments in rem.
' A judgment in personam determines the rights of the parties inter se to or in the subject-matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but does not affect the status of either persons or things, or make any disposition of property, or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties litigant.
Judgments in personam include all judgments which are not judgments in rem, but as many judgments in the latter class deal with the status of persons and not of things, the description "Judgment inter parties" is preferable to 'Judgment in personam'.
' Judgment, In Rem.--- A judgment in rem may be defined as the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing, or the disposition of a thing (as distinct from the particular interest in it of a party to the litigation). Apart from the application of the term to persons, it must affect the res in the way of condemnation, forfeiture, declaration of status or title, or order for sale or transfer.
(IV) Black's Law Dictionary with pronunciations (6th Edition). Judgment in personam or inter parties.
A judgment against a particular person, as distinguished from a judgment against a thing or a right or status.
' Judgment in rem. An adjudication pronounced upon the status of some particular thing or subject-matter, by a Tribunal, having competent authority. Booth v. Copley, 238 Ky.23, 140 S.W. 2d, 62, 666. It is founded on a proceeding instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. Eureka Building and Loan Ass'n v. Shultz, 139 Kan, 435, 32 P.2d 477, 480; or one brought to enforce a right in the thing itself. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v.
Jafferson, 229 Iowa 1054, 295 N.W. 855, 857. It operates upon the property, Guild v. Walis, 150 Or. 69, 40 P. 2nd 747, 742. It is a solemn declaration for the status of some person or thing. Jones v. Teat, Tex Civ. Appellant., 57 S.W. 2d. 617, 620. It is binding upon all persons in so far as their interests in the property are concerned.
10. To further elaborate the above aspect, it would be relevant to refer the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (supra) wherein this Court has held that when Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the Civil servants who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum. This Court in the case of Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2003 SCM R 1030 also extended the benefit to all the persons falling within the same category in order to do complete justice. To further fortify, reference is made to the case of Hakim Muhammad Nabi Khan and 2 others v. Warasatullah through Legal Representatives 1987 SCM R 1698, wherein this Court had allowed benefit of relief to non-appearing party of doing complete justice. Irrespective of above, this Court in the case of Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, District, Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others 1997 SCM R 1692, while discussing the provisions of Order XLI, rule 33, C.P.C. And Order XXXIII, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, has held at page 1709 as under:-- "Not only this it is now well-settled that under Order XLI, rule 33, C.P.C., that the High court and under Order XXXIII, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court, can exercise the appellate powers in favor of all or any of the respondents or parties although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection".
11. Irrespective of above case laws, our Constitutional provisions are also explicit. According to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic E Republic of Pakistan, 1973, all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
12. The result, therefore, is that for the reasons stated above, we find force in the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner and applicants and allow Civil Review Petition No,259 of 2002 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 874 and 875 of 2001. Accordingly, petitioner Tara Chand and applicants, namely, Muhammad Haneef, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Dawood and Asadulah Saher are also extended the same relief which has been allowed by this Court on 14-5-2002 in Civil Appeal No,1235 of 2000.