MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J:- Impugned herein are the judgments and decrees of learned courts below whereby appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed by learned appellate court on 16.11.2015 against order dated 07.03.2014 passed by learned trial court whereby he had dismissed application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and proceeded with trial of the suit.
2. Facts of this case are quite numerous starting from the year 1996 when respondent filed suit for grant of a school character certificate of Government of High School Reshun, and held that defendants No.1 to 3 be directed to grant him the said certificate. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Chitral on 10.09.2009 but the relief regarding grant of damages was dismissed. Respondent filed appeal for the grant of damages as well. On 06.03.2010 learned appellate court allowed the appeal and granted damages to respondent to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only. Present petitioners filed C.R.No.1041/2010 in this court which was allowed on 05.10.2010 and order of grant of decretal amount as special and general damages was set aside and the judgment of learned trial court was restored. Respondent proceeded to execute the order in execution petition and on 19.03.2011 character certificate was issued to the respondent and the execution petition was consigned to record room as having been satisfied. In the said character certificate, petitioners had made certain remarks regarding the conduct of respondent so he challenged this last order in revision before learned District Judge who dismissed the said revision petition. Feeling further aggrieved, respondent filed C.R.No.475-M/2012, which was heard and on 25.09.2012 said civil revision petition was allowed, despite the fact that the impugned order was also passed in civil revision. The said order was again put to execution which was accordingly executed and a fresh character certificate was issued as directed by this court by deleting the earlier remarks. Hence, respondent filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.42,61,000/- as special damages. Petitioners submitted their written statements as well as an application for rejection of plaint, which has been decided through the impugned orders.
I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to order dated 05.10.2010 passed in C.R.No.1041/2010 and submitted that the claim for recovery of damages was dismissed on merits, therefore, the present suit is repetition of the same subject matter raised in their earlier civil suit, hence, barred by order 2 Rule 2 as well Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent agitated that the subject suit is of special damages while the claim in earlier suit was only compensatory cost of litigation. He submitted that the defamation is not extended to PATA areas so the suit had to be filed under general law of torts.
5. Perusal of the earlier plaint filed by respondent reveals that he had prayed for declaration for grant of school character certificate and 2nd relief was for recovery of Rs.20,000/- for revengeful and criminal act of petitioners, which caused him severe mental torture anguish and which adversely effected his future carrier. Plain reading of the heading of the present plaint, inter alia, reveals that claim for damages on the ground of personal enmity, ill will revenge and collusion whereby he was detained in examination of 1995 and was expelled within the examination hall where he was appearing as student of matric vide Roll No.77320 and also cancelled his result.
It is further mentioned that he has attended 147 dates in courts in earlier proceedings and paid Rs.2,20,000/- on account of legal fees besides other expenses.
6. Now the comparison of both the two plaints reveals that except for the difference in detailed wordings and the amount claimed, the subject matter as decided up to this court regarding grant of damages is on one and the same ground as the present suit is, therefore, barred to further proceed under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, as the same subject matter was substantially and directly in issue in the earlier suit. It is worthy to note, that if respondent felt that he has left out some aspects for which he has not claimed damages before, then this suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC also as it amounts to relinquishment of the same. Reliance is placed on 1996 SCMR 1110.
7. For the purpose of applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, courts are legally bound to decide the same by perusal of the plaint only to arrive at the conclusion in that regard. Moreover, the instant suit has been filed on 07.12.2012 claiming cause of action having accrued on 13.08.1996 for the first time and on 10.06.1998 for the 2nd time and then on 25.09.2012 for the 3rd time, as he considers it his own sweet will to raise the issue as and when he desires. It is very strange that learned courts below have dismissed the application without keeping in view the relevant provisions of law. No doubt, respondent has faced protracted litigation on account of the conduct of petitioners unbecoming of their standing, being a teacher who are endowed with a sacred duty of educating the future generation without personal motives or ill will but for that they have also faced this protracted litigation extending for about ten years. The record bears true testimony of the fact, that both the parties have gone out of their limits during the whole of this process. Respondent was only student of class 10th but in disregard of discipline he opted for litigation in courts instead of concentrating on his studies. Respondent could have moved departmental authorities of the petitioners if they had committed any act unbecoming of their stature or which amounted to misconduct under the civil servant laws and then should have left it to their verdict. Therefore, both the parties are responsible for the agonies of each other. As about teachers, it is said that "to the world you may be just a teacher but to your students you are a hero". About the students, we are reminded, "so often you find that the students you are trying to inspire are the ones that end up inspiring you".
In view of the above, I hold that plaint of petitioner is liable to be rejected and so on acceptance of this revision petition, the impugned judgments/orders are set aside and the plaint of respondent/plaintiff is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.
No order as to costs.