ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition is directed by the petitioners under section 115, C.P.C. against the impugned judgment/decree dated 30-10-2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioners/plaintif fs by maintaining the judgment/decree dated 19-4-2017 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit.
2. The factual background of ease is that the present petitioners/plaintif fs filed a suit for rendition of account against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court as the present respondents had awarded two contracts i,e, Hailished Gama Skardu, S.M Barrecks Gilgit and 10% security deposit. The petitioners/ plaintif fs have prayed in their plaint/suit after rendition of account decree may be granted in favour of petitioners/plaintif fs.
3. The contesting respondents/ defendants Nos, 1 and 2 contested the suit by way of filing of their joint written statement in the learned trial court, wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated contents of plaint on factual side. The respondents Nos, 3 and 4 have also filed a separate written statement in the trial court raising certain legal and factual grounds in their written statement.
4. During pendency of suit the respondents/ defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint in the trial court mainly on the ground that under the settled law the petitioners cannot file suit for rendition of account against the respondents/defendants.
5. The learned trial court after obtaining replication from the petitioners and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has allowed the aforesaid application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and rejected the suit of plaintif fs/ petitioners vide judgment order dated 19.4.2016. The aforesaid order/ judgment of the learned trial court was challenged in the court of leaned Additional District Judge Gilgit through civil first appeal by the present petitioners/plaintif fs and learned 1st Appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has also dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioners by maintaining order of the leaned Trial Court dated 19.4.2016, vide the impugned judgment/ decree dated 30-10-2017, hence this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned courts below are against the facts and law, hence both the judgme nts passed by courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that both the judgments passed by courts below are perverse, ambiguous as both the courts below have not applied its judicious thought while passing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court have misinterpreted the relevant provisions of law while passing the impugned judgments, as such the impugned judgment/ decree passed by both the learned courts below are not tenable and liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below by contending that both the learned courts below have rightly rejected the suit of the plaintif fs under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. after proper appreciating of the relevant provisions of law, as the suit of the petitioners/plaintif fs was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos,1 and 2 further argued that the suit for rendition of account cannot be filed against a department as per settled law .
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below with their able assistance.
9. Admittedly , late father of the present petitioners was awarded two contract s by the present respondents/ defendants Nos.1 and 2 i,e, construction of three Hailished at Gamba Skardu, and construction of S.M. Barracks at Gilgit and before rendition of account original contractor namely Shah Jahan has passed away and his legal heirs/present petitioners have tiled a suit for rendition of account in the trial court.
10. It is well settled principle of law that suit for rendition of account can only be filed-against the defendant by the plaintif f when there is fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of partners of firm, guardian and ward, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary of the trust. But in the instant case, the relationship between the parties is admittedly contractual. In a such case, the respondents/defendants are not under obligation to render the accounts, to the petitioners/ defendants. Thus, both the courts below have rightly rejected suit of the petitioners/defendants under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., as the suit of the petitioners/plaintif fs was incompetent and not maintainable. The impugned judgments passed by both the courts below are in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme. Court of Pakistan in case titled Messrs Friend Engineer Corporation Lahore v.
Government of Punjab and 4 others 1991 SCMR 2324 and Lahore High Court in case titled Town Committee Joharabad v . Falak Sher 2003 CLC 71 .
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to hold that both the learned courts below have not committed any irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgments/ orders warranting interference by this court rather both the learned courts below have rightly rejected the suit of the petitioners Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., hence I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismis sed. There shall be no order as to costs. File.