1. ' KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, J.-- The Additional Registrar (0.S.) of this Court has raised the following .Objections on 10-9-2007:- "(i) It appears that the suit is hit, in respect of prayer clauses (1) to (5) as provided under Articles 14 and 91 of the Limitation Act.
(ii) Let the plaintiff a limited company and the Resolution of Board of Directors to be filed as provided under Order XXIX, rule 1, C.P.C.
(iii) Translation of vernacular documents as Annexures "B", "13/1", "D" to "D/3" and "E/1" 'to be filed as provided under Rule 40(5) Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.).
(iv) It may be pointed out that the plaintiffs Messrs Javedan Cement Limited had earlier filed Civil Suits being Suits Nos.282 of 1994, 390 of 1994, 431 of 2005; 99 of 2006, 889 of 2006, 949 of 2006, 815 of 2006 and 652 of 2006, which are being for adjudication before this Honourable Court.
(v) Proper Annexures to be marked.
(vi) Cost, copies and draft summons to be supplied."
2. ' In reply to the objections raised by the learned Additional Registrar the plaintiffs submit that as regards objections to the limitation of the suit the suit is very much within the limits prescribed by law as per PLD 1960 Lah. 1179, the limitation for the purposes of Article 14 shall start only upon the plaintiff or the aggrieved party's knowledge of the impugned order of the Government officer. He submits that the plaintiff came to know about the allotment order in favour of the defendants only in the month of September, 2007 when the defendants approached the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the land allegedly allotted to them, the limitation shall start from the date of knowledge i,e, September," 2007. He further submits that the superior courts have been consistently holding that no limitation runs against an illegal and unlawful order. The present impugned order is an illegal order and has been passed without authority in respect of the land which was already allotted/leased out to the plaintiff for 99 years by the defendant No,1, therefore, the same could not be leased out to anyone unless the previous lease was cancelled by the Board of Revenue, Sindh.
3. Therefore, Articles 14 and 91 do not apply to the instant suit. As regards objections Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 these objections have been complied with.
4. ' Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman learned counsel for the defendants Nos.11 and 12 has supported the objections raised by the learned Additional Registrar. He submits that plaintiff a public limited company, registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, has filed the above suit through its Chief Operating Officer, whereas it has been signed and verified by Mr. Sabpio Soomro son of Dost Muhammad Soomro, Deputy Manager (Revenue), who is neither Secretary or Director or duly Authorized Principal Officer of the plaintiff. He submits that office has rightly raised objection that the suit has not been properly filed as required under Order XXIX, rule 1, C.P.C. And no satisfactory reply in that behalf has been given by the plaintiff. He further submits that the suit has neither been properly signed nor properly verified and instituted unauthorizedly and incompletely as the Resolution annexed to the plaint is a memorandum of authority authorizing Mr. Sabpio Soomro, Deputy Manager (Revenue) to sign and file a constitutional petition in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi and not the present suit. Learned counsel further submits that office has rightly raised objection that the suit is hit under Articles 14 and 91 of the Limitation Act, because as per Annexure "A/4", the land measuring 1-00 acre from Naclass No,70 of Deh Manghopir, Karachi was leased out in favour of defendant No,8 by the Land Utilization Department vide order, dated 18-7-1993 and has been regularized by the (LU) Department Government of Sindh in favour of defendant No,8 on 10- 12-2005 in pursuance of section 4(2) of Ordinance III of 2001 after acceptance of offer and deposit of differential malkano of Rs,3,67,840 vide challan dated 2-9-2005 as determined by the Land Committee. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. On 17-3- 2008, learned Advocate for the plaintiff has filed a statement at bar with certain documents containing 133 pages as Annexures "A" to "A-15" wherein it is contended that according to recent report of the Mukhtiarkar Gadap Town, the title of the plaintiff upon the subject land inter alia was found to be free from any' defects. Mr. Khalilur Rehman learned Advocate for the defendants Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 filed his reply on 10-4-2008 to the said statement and supported the objections raised by learned Additional Registrar (O.S.) on the ground inter alia that the above said documents neither relate to the subject-matter of this suit nor are a reply to the objection taken by the office regarding maintainability of suit. Thus, the said documents cannot be considered by this Court at this stage.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, relevant law and case-law on the subject.
6. ' On perusal of record it appears that the plaintiff is pleading lack of knowledge of impugned documents in questions/orders of Revenue Authorities in favour of defendants only in the month of September, 2007 when the defendants approached the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the land allegedly allotted to them therefore, the limitation shall start from the date of knowledge i,e, September, 2007. He further submits that the superior courts have been consistently holding that no limitation runs against an illegal and unlawful order. In 1992 CLC 1480 it has been held that in case of lack of knowledge of documents in question, rejection of suit straightway not warranted. In 2001 YLR 1834 it has been held by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur that averments of plaint are to be considered for rejection of plaint. Defence of defendant or any other material produced by him would not be taken into consideration while exercising power under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. In 1994 SCMR 826, Mr. Justice Syed Saiduzzaman Siddiqui (as his Lordship then was) held that Court while rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Cannot take into consideration the plea of defendant when such plea is disputed and denied by the plaintiff. It was further held at page 832 (supra) that until such time the documents relating to earlier proceedings were brought on record in accordance with law and the matter was thoroughly examined with regard to controversy in the two, proceedings, it was not possible for the Court to reach the conclusion that the suit involved the same controversy which was decided in the earlier proceedings.
7. ' In 2003 SCMR 83, Honuorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that technicalities of law are always avoided and discouraged in order to do complete justice and to ensure that justice is not only done but also seems to have been done. The rules of procedure are enacted for fostering the ends of justice and preserving the rights rather than to stifle the dispensation of justice and unless they are insurmountable, ends of justice always outweigh the manner of practice and procedure.
8. As regards the objection for institution of suit by unauthorized person it may be observed that it is not mandatory as Order XXIX contains permissible provision. In 1982 CLC 1276 it has been held that non-signing of plaint by person authorized is only an irregularity and not an illegality so as to non- suit the plaintiff. Such omission can be rectified at any time. Rule (1) of Order XXIX of the Code provides that in A suits by or against corporation/company pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of corporation/company by the Secretary or by any Director of ether Principal Officer of the corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case. In 1988 CLC 1381 it has been held that suit in the name of limited company may be signed and verified by its Manager.
9. ' For the foregoing facts and discussion, office objections are overruled with all just exceptions.