' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Hidayatullah, plaintiff instituted suit against Yaqoob Khan Marwat, defendant, the then Director, Anti-Con uption Establishment, Peshawar, seeking recovery of Rs,10,00,000 as damages for mental torture and loss of reputation for maliciously involving the plaintiff in a false corruption case.
2. The facts which I have been able to gather from the record of the case are, that while posted as Engineer at Bannu, the residents of Sarwar Mama Khel, Tehsil Lakki Marwat, District Bannu, submitted an application to the Ministry of Interior and Director Anti-Corruption, Peshawar containing serious allegations of corruption and irregularities against the petitioner. An inquiry, in pursuance thereof, was conducted by the Sub-Inspector (Anti-Corruption Establishment) and the allegations were not proved and the Assistant Director Crimes (Anti-Corruption Establishment) recommended that the case be dropped against the petitioner. However, the respondent put the case to Anti-Corruption Committee No,1 for appropriate action. Finally, the petitioner having been found not guilty was exonerated of the charge.
3. The defendant in his written statement repudiated the allegations of the plaintiff and pleaded that suit was incompetent, not maintainable and barred under the expressed provisions contained in section 5 of West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance (Ordinance XX) 1961, read with section 42 of the Police Act, 1861.
4. Consequent upon moving of an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the trial Court framed preliminary issues for adjudication as under:--
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(2) Whether the suit is barred by any law?
(3) Relief.
5. The learned Civil Judge, Peshawar, seized of the matter, accepted the application and rejected the plaint by his order dated 10-7-1999, mainly on the ground that defendant having acted in his official capacity, cannot be prosecuted in any manner and suit was not maintainable. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not bear fruit. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District within six months, after receiving the order of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 15-5-2006. The office is directed to send the record forthwith to the trial Court.