1. C.M.A. No,166 of 2005. This application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Is moved on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no cause of action; secondly, the suit is barred under section 11 C.P.C; and thirdly, the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court. The plaintiff has got no right and title to file the present suit. When the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.1, 3 to 6 who has moved the listed application was called upon to address the Court he stated that he would need further time to address. It appears that the parties are hotly contesting the matter and counsel for the plaintiff and interveners submit that students are suffering on account of dispute between the Plaintiff and other Defendants. According to them students are being deprived of the decree to which they are entitled to.
2. On 1-3-2005 the matter was adjourned as a last chance to 8-3-2005 thereafter twice adjournments has been sought by the defendants. It is stated that in support of plea of res judicata under section 11, C.P.0 Suit No,100 was filed at Hyderabad which is still pending. It may be observed that pendency of the suit would not attract section 11, C.P.C, therefore, the bar in terms of section 11, C.P.0 would not be attracted. The allegation that the facts have been concealed is no ground to reject the plaint. As regards cause of action the plaintiff has spelled out the cause of action in para. 28 of the plaint, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is without cause of action. As regards the right of the plaintiff such rights have been clearly asserted in para-1 of the plaint. At this juncture it cannot be said that plaintiff has no right, however, on such assertion issue, may be framed at appropriate time. The application does not merit consideration, same is accordingly dismissed.
3. It appears some dispute has arisen between the parties to the suit as to manner in which a Chartered Institution is to be run, maintained and regulated.' Qazi Khalid, learned A.A.-G has drawn my attention to sections 7 and 8 of the Preston Institute of Management, Science and Technology Ordinance, 2001 and so also The Preston University Act, 1999. It appears that the Governor of Sindh under both the Enactments is possessed of wide range of powers, authority and jurisdiction to take stock of the situation and pass appropriate orders regulating mismanagement and financial discipline in the Chartered Institution. Since large number of students would be affected by any dispute if allowed to be continued in Court. It is deemed appropriate that the Governor of Sindh may exercise the powers as conferred under the enactment referred to above and decide the controversy as raised in suit, and take such-measure, so as to resolve the 'Controversy and regulate the administrative and financial affairs in the best and larger interest of the Institution. Needless to say that, all the parties may be given fair opportunity of being heard Qazi Khalid learned A.A.-G states that on account of pressing engagement of the Hon'ble Governor of Sindh efforts will be made to decide the matter preferably within a period of three months. Let this matter may be fixed in Court after such time.