AAMER FAROOQ, C.J. This is an application seeking extension in time for removal of office objection.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there were two civil suits before Civil Courts which were decided through a consolidated judgment. However, one decree sheet has been prepared with respect to both the suits. It was further submitted that in this view of the matter, only one appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel also contended that on 24.08.2021, this Court erroneously raised office objection and granted seven days time to the appellant to meet the office objection. He pointed out that the order dated 24.08.2021 is contrary to the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as "Zahid Zaman Khan and others v. Khan Afsar and others" [PLD 2016 Supreme Court 409]. When confronted, whether this Court can review its earlier order, learned counsel contended that under the High Court Rules and Orders, the orders passed in office objection cases are of administrative nature and not judicial. He contended that in view of the decision under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the administrative order can always be recalled. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the cases titled as "Tahira Naseem v. Arshad Mehmood and others"
[2021 PCr.LJ 682J, "Siraj Din and 11 others v. Rajada" 11992 SCMR 979], "Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and another v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom" [PLD 1991 Supreme Court 973], "Rana Naveed Alunad Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary LG and CD" [PLD 2014 Lahore 436] and "Muhammad Rasool v. Ajab Khan and others" [2019 CLC 897].
3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant have been heard.
4. Insofar as the nature of proceedings in objection cases is concerned, the matter was elaborated in the case titled "Rana Naveed Ahinad Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary LG and CD"
[PLD 2014 Lab. 436]. In the said ease, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, while making reference to Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court Volume-V, observed that while hearing an objection case, the Court is performing an administrative function and only after an office objection is overruled, the case is matured on the judicial side and formally enters the area of the jurisdiction of the Court accordingly. Similar observations were made in the case titled "Tahira Nascent v. Arshad Mehmood and others" [2021 PCr.LJ 682], wherein Single Bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court observed that proceedings before the Administrative Judge were not judicial rather the same were administrative in nature. Since the proceedings, in hand, are of administrative nature, absence of power of review is not impediment to recall any earlier order if it is found to be contrary to law; resort can be made to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that the authority, competent to pass an order even in absence of expressed provision, can also revoke, rescind or recall the same until the decisive act is taken.
5. Now, coming to the factual position in the instant case that two suits were pending before the Civil Court, which have been decided through a consolidated judgment and single decree sheet was prepared, which is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled "Zahid Zaman Khan and others v. Khan Afsar and others" [PLD 2016 Supreme Court 409]. In the referred case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there does not exist any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, where the court was obliged to prepare separate decrees in each of the consolidated suit. However, it would be more appropriate if separate decrees were drawn up. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that where two or more suits have been consolidated and disposed of through a common judgment, all Trial Courts must draw up separate decree sheets with all the material particulars. In the light of the said dictum, the Trial Court has to draw up separate decree sheets for two or more matters. Likewise, in the said judgment, it has been held that where two or more suits have been decided ideally separate appeals be preferred but it is not mandatory.
6. It is a settled position that an act of court shall not prejudice anyone, hence failure to draw up separate decree sheets does not prejudice the appellant in any way 'the fact that the applicant had preferred one appeal against the consolidated judgment in two separate suits with one decree sheet in both the suits is in violation of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though one appeal is against decision of two suits is permissible but two separate decree sheets are to be appended.
7. In light of above position of law no occasion is made out to recall order dated 24.08.2021, however, the appellant is required to file separate decree sheets for the two decided suits.
8. For above reasons application is allowed seven days further time is allowed to appellant to remove the office objection.