' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 20-8-2014 of the learned District Judge, Skardu, that he passed in Civil 1st Appeal No,54/13, 30-14 has been challenged through this petition. The Civil 1st appeal is in fact one and the two numbers of the same are result of giving two numbers for the said single appeal first by ADSJ, Skardu, as 54/2013, and then by the DJ, Skardu as 30/2014.
2. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit against the residents of Koshmara and the residents of Kashmura Gond through their representatives. After institution of the suit A the learned trial court started trial proceedings. On 22-10-2001, during the trial proceeding of the suit representatives, numbering twelve (12) moved an application praying for withdrawal from contesting the suit as representatives of the respondents and instead prayed for allowing them for contesting the suit in their personal capacity. Learned trial court allowed the said application. Since then the said twelve representatives, who are respondents in this petition, contested the suit in their personal capacity.
Learned trial court gave its findings/judgment through judgment/decree dated 23-9-2013. Feeling aggrieved from the same petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the 1st appeal in the District Court, who through impugned order held that the respondents are contesting the suit in their personal capacity.
3. I have heard counsel for parties and have gone through the record of the case. The only question debated before me is that, whether respondents are representatives of the respondents/ defendants or have been contesting the suit in their personal capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that they have filed the suit and have arrayed parties to the case, wherein respondents have been shown as representatives of the respondents/ defendants. The correctness of order dated 22-10-2001 of the trial court is not disputed. The views of the learned counsel for petitioners regarding the order dated 20-10-2001 of the trial court are that the same order is ineffective in eye of law as the learned trial court although passed the order but in all order sheets and the final judgment the learned trial court wrote names of the respondents as representatives of the defendants. In the opinion of the learned counsel for petitioners writing of names of the respondents as representatives of the defendants in his all order sheets as well as in the judgment has a binding effect on the parties as well as on the courts. This view of the learned counsel for the petitioners is wrong and learned counsel for petitioners failed to cite any law or precedent law in support thereof.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order contending that the order dated 22-10-2001 of the learned trial court is in field with its full force and in the light of the same respondents have been contesting the suit in their personal capacity and never as representatives of the defendants.
5. In my opinion impugned order is simple repetition of what the trial court held in his order 22-10- 200L The impugned order is a very speaking order and does not suffer from any floating defect inviting interference of this court. The order dated 22-10-2001 of the learned trial court has attained finality and from 22-10-2001 onwards respondents are not representatives of defendants and no court can force them to act as representatives of the residents of Koshmara or Kashmura Gond, the defendants in the suit. After hearing the parties and going through the file, I have come to the conclusion that soon after order dated 22-10-2001 of the trial court, petitioners were duty bound to move the trial court for re-arraying the defendants of the suit through their new representatives replacing the petitioners. Petitioners/plaintiffs as well as the learned trial court omitted to do so resulting to writing of names of respondents as representatives of defendants. So the use of the names of respondents as representatives of the defendants is never result of mistake or omission on the part of respondents but the same is result of omission or mistake on the part of petitioners/plaintiffs or the trial court.
6. In the above circumstances I hold that the impugned order is correct, therefore upheld. Finding meritless. Parties to bear their own cost. This file be consigned to record.
7. Announced.