' JAWWAD S. KHAWJA, J.---The case has been called repeatedly at intervals. None has appeared for the respondent although the name of learned counsel for the respondent duly appears in the cause list.
2. The petitioner/defendant Dost Muhammad impugns the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court, dated 7-6-1993 and of the learned appellate Court, dated 16-2-1994, whereby the suit of the respondent claiming damages of Rs,20,000 has been decreed to the extent of Rs,5000 only. The basis of the respondent's claim was that an earlier suit filed by the petitioner against him had been dismissed. The present suit was filed with the object of recovering his costs in the earlier suit. This suit quite clearly is not maintainable because it was for the respondent/plaintiff as a defendant in the other suit to have claimed costs or special costs therein. Likewise, it was for the Court deciding the earlier suit to award costs or special costs, if any. No separate suit was maintainable for recovering costs incurred by the respondent in the earlier suit.
3. In the above circumstances, the learned Courts below have erred in law by decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. In view of the illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Courts below, their decrees are set aside. As a consequence, the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.