' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--- Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2014 passed by V" dditional District Judge, Karachi, South, in Civil Appeal No.113/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the Applicant was dismissed and the order dated 25.4.2013, allowing application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by Respondents Nos.1 and 2, whereby suit of the Applicant was dismissed, was maintained.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the Applicant was employed with Respondent No.1 and after putting in over 25 years of service he opted for voluntarily retirement vide letter dated 24.3.2009 and was retired from his service w.e.f.
01.4.2009. On 03.4.2009 a sum of Rs.1,775,108/80 was paid to him vide Pay Order No.3060997 dated 28.3.2009 in full and final settlement of his retiring benefits. He applied for return of documents of his house/flat, which were lying with the Bank and the same were returned to him on 06.4.2009.
However, on 02.4.2012, the Applicant filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs.5,138,013/-. When notices were issued to the Respondents, they filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed therein.
It was also argued that the suit filed by the Applicant is time barred. This application was allowed vide order dated 25.4.2013 and the suit was dismissed. The applicant assailed the order dated 25.4.2013 by filing Civil Appeal No.113/2013, which was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment, hence this revision application.
3. The Applicant who appeared in person argued that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Were wrongly applied by the trial Court as due to wrong calculation of the expansionary benefits cause of action accrued to the Applicant, who filed suit for recovery of the amount of difference. He, therefore, prayed that this revision application may be allowed and the case be remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the present revision application is not maintainable as there are concurrent findings against the Applicant. He also submitted that the revision application is also barred by limitation.
5. I have heard the Applicant in person and learned counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 and have perused the record.
6. In Para-3 of the revision application, the Applicant stated that "the Respondent-Bank without any circular, but through its rumor group's propaganda announced early retirement scheme with additional benefits to the employees (including the Applicant) having 25 and above years of service". In this regard reference may be made to the letter titled "REQUEST FOR EARLY RETIREMENT WITH ADDITIONAL BENEFITS", Para-1 whereof clearly states that "in accordance with a scheme, the Bank had allowed additional benefits to the employees mandatory retired in .January, 2007. I have already completed my 25 years service on 30.11.2008 and eligible to opt for a pre-mature retirement in accordance with the Bank's Policy". This letter clearly speaks for a scheme of Bank's Policy for premature retirement and thus persons who have put in more than 25 years of service.
Therefore, the statement of the Applicant that there was no scheme or policy for A premature retirement of employees having put in more than 25 years of service, is wrong. Even otherwise, however, if there was no policy or scheme for early retirement then why the Applicant applied for the same. At the relevant time he was working as a Manager with the Respondent-Bank and was not an illiterate person.
7. Now I will take up the question as to whether any cause of action accrued to the Applicant to file the suit or not. It is an admitted fact that the Applicant applied for early retirement vide his letter dated 24.3.2009, which was accepted and he was retired from service w.e.f. 01.4.2009. His final dues were calculated and the same were paid to him on 30.4.2009 vide Pay Order No.3060997 dated 28.3.2009 for Rs.1,775,108/80 in full and final settlement of his dues. The Applicant received the same without any note of descent or objection, thus it is cleared that he was satisfied with the calculation. Therefore, he applied for return of documents of his property, which was mortgaged with the Respondent-Bank and the same were returned to him on 06.4.2009, which was duly acknowledged by the Applicant. However, after a lapse of considerable time i.e. On 02.4.2012, the Applicant filed the above suit for Damages. The Applicant has not denied that he has received his retirement benefits on 03.4.2009, therefore, he kept silent. This conduct of the Applicant clearly shows that he was satisfied with the retirement benefits paid to him. Thus, he has no cause of action to file the said suit. He has only claimed miscalculation of the benefits and that too after a lapse of three years. Since Applicant himself is a Banker and according to his own bereavements during the course of his employment he improved his educational and professional qualification such as Masters in Economics, Diploma Associate Institute of Bankers etc., therefore, it cannot be presumed that he was unable to roughly calculate his retirement benefits. Even if there was any miscalculation, the Applicant should have immediately approach the Court for redress of his grievance and should not have waited for more than three years for the same. Thus, the Applicant was fully satisfied with the retirement benefits received by him and it was only an afterthought that he filed a suit for recovery of damages after lapse of three years. The Courts below were thus justified in holding that no cause of action accrued to the Applicant/Plaintiff in view of the fact that he has received his full and final settlement after his premature from the Respondent No.1.
8. There are concurrent findings against the Applicant and the same cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising rev divisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless it is shown that there is misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the findings are perverse. In the case of Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Abdullah [PLD 1994 SC 291], the Honorable Supreme Court held as under:- "4. It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second Civil Appeal much less in exercise of the revision jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is perverse. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revision jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is still narrower.
The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Can only interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts on the grounds, that the Court below has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity effecting its jurisdiction in the case, (See Umar Dad Khan v. Tilla Muhammad Khan, PLD 1970 SC 288, Muhammad. Bakhsh V. Muhammad Ali, 1984 SCMR 504, Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan PLD 1986 SC 89 and Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad 1987 SCMR 1005). Under this jurisdiction the High Court only corrects the jurisdictional errors of subordinate Courts. The fact that the High Court while reappraising the evidence on record reached a conclusion different from those arrived at by the two Courts below, could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact much less a concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below on the basis of evidence produced before them, in exercise of its revision jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C."
9. The Applicant, who appeared in person, was unable to show any non-reading or misreading of the evidence or that the findings of the two Courts below are perverse.
10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference from this Court. This revision application is accordingly dismissed.