AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---1-3 & 5]. For the time being learned counsel for plaintiffs does not press these applications. Accordingly the same are dismissed as not pressed, however, learned counsel for plaintiffs will be at liberty to file proper application[s] at any later stage, if so wish.
4. Adjourned.
6. Through this application defendant No.2 seeks recall of order dated 15.05.2013 whereby on an application moved on behalf of plaintiffs in view of Circular No.GAZ/XII.Z.14(HC)(i) dated 16-10-2012, the suit was placed on 'fast track' by taking the plea that one of the defendants i.e. Defendant No.2 [Mst. Rupiyya Bibi] is aged about 75 years. Consequently, vide order dated 15-5-2013 the application was granted and the suit was treated on 'fast track'.
For ready reference and convenience purposes the circular reads as follows:-- "The Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to order that preference be given to the cases of Senior citizens i.e. Persons aged above 65 years, widows who have not re-married and orphans whose both parents have expired. In case they opt for fast track, they should move an application which would be heard in court and decided accordingly. Once the priority is given to a particular case, the Roster shall fix such case on weekly basis. The file cover of the cases, to which priority has been allocated, should be given different colour preferable 'RED' to attract the attention of the Hon'ble Judges." [Underlining is mine].
' Learned counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 urged that neither.Any of defendants is above the age of 65 years nor the requisite application for treating the case on 'fast track' was moved on behalf of any of the defendants including defendant No.2.
' Learned counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 focused my attention upon the word [phrase] i.e. 'in case they opt for fast track' and vehemently argued that the choice of moving such application for placing the case on 'fast track' rests with the person whose age is more than 65 years and not with the person as the case in hand is.
' On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that indeed none of the plaintiffs is above the age of 65 years but still plaintiffs had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of moving such an application under section 151, C.P.C. (C.M.A. No.3633 of 2013) on the basis of defendant No.2's age about 75 years.
' Heard.
Upon going through the contents of the circular and hearing of the arguments I am of the considered opinion that the choice of placing the case on 'fast track' is with the person inter alia whose age is above 65 years and not with the person who is below the age of 65 years as the case in hand is.
Further from perusal of record it appears that this application (C.M.A No.11028 of 2013) was filed on 2-10-2013 but in rebuttal no counter-affidavit has been filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, contents of the application and its supporting affidavit have gone un-rebutted. Besides, the learned counsel for plaintiffs is not in a position to satisfy this court for meeting the conditions of above circular to have this case continue on 'fast track' any more.
' Under circumstances, order dated 15-5-2013 is recalled.
Office is directed to change the file from 'red' cover to 'ordinary' cover and not to treat this case on 'fast track' anyone.
' The application stands disposed of.
7. Adjourned.