1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---' This is an application (C.M.A. 7676 of 2010) under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint. Learned counsel for the defendants in support of his application has submitted that since suspension order has been questioned along with the prayer of damages in this suit the plaint is liable to be rejected. However, during the course of arguments he had admitted that plaintiff has not claimed the reinstatement into service but has claimed only damages and challenged the suspension order. He has also admitted that plaint cannot be rejected in parts but it can be rejected as a whole. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the case of MRs, Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another 1994 SCM R 2232.
3. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that application merits no consideration as in the suit relief of reinstatement has not been claimed but the suspension order has been challenged. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that apart from the above the plaintiff has also claimed for damages which requires evidence and claim of damages is not hit by any of the clauses of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. He says that application is liable to be dismissed.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available before me.
5. ' From the perusal of prayer clause it is apparent that amongst other reliefs a prayer for damages is also made by the plaintiff which requires evidence. Even otherwise, suit for damages is not hit by any of the clauses of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the defendants is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the case in hand for the reasons that MRs, Anisa Rehman's case as quoted hereinabove had dealt with the question of demotion in service from one grade to another without hearing and that too such demotion order was questioned in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was dismissed who had challenged the same before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was disposed of through the above referred judgment. Since that case has dealt with the issue of demotion which point is not in this case in the present case. The reported judgment has no bearing whatsoever. Even otherwise, the ratio of MRs, Anisa Rehman's case has been clarified by the learned Judge of the honourable Supreme Court who had authored the cases of Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia-ul-HassanKazmi 1998 SCR 60 and United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others 1998 SCM R 68 wherein the learned Judge of the honourable Supreme Court had stated that ratio of the judgment in the case of MRs, Anisa Rehman (supra) is that a corporation cannot demote its employee to a lower grade without hearing him or her before passing demotion order. It further goes on to say that it has not dealt with the question of termination of service or suspension order. In view of above, judgment cited by learned counsel for the defendants, has no bearing with the case in hand.
6. For the foregoing reasons the application under disposal merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.