' The facts giving rise to this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Are that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11-5-1981 was filed on 27-3-1982 by the Water and Power Development Authority the present petitioner. In the heading of this application sections 12, 114, 151 and Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. Were cited originally but Order IX, rule 13 was struck out and instead Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was mentioned. The ex parte decree obtained by the respondent was challenged by taking various grounds. The averments contained in para. 11 of the application as it contains the main ground of challenge may be reproduced:-- "That there was no defendant made in the plaint as such service of the summons on any person of WAPDA could not be effected and the report, dated 10-1-1981 and 7-1-1981 by the process, server is bogus. There is no mention of even the name of a clerk of WAPDA. This service is'managed by the plaintiff illegally. There is no truth in it. It is clearly based on fraud and misrepresentation and any order based on this fraudulent service is liable to be set aside."
' It is also pertinent to mention that in the plaint the petitioner which was the sole defendant was described as under:-- "The Water and Power Development Authority (Electricity) WAPDA House, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e- Azam, Lahore."
2. The application filed by the petitioner was treated by the learned Senior Civil Judge as application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. As is apparent from his order, dated 15-4-1982. The application was adjourned from time to time and then on 4-11-1982 learned trial Court passed an order directing the petitioner to make up the deficiency to the tune of Rs,9,088 by the next date i.e, 9-12-1982. This order was passed as it was represented by the other side that the application having been filed under Order XLVII, C.P.C. Is a review petition and as such court-fee of the requisite value is leviable. It is pertinent to note that none on behalf of WAPDA appeared on the date when this order was passed. Then on the next date of hearing as the deficiency in the Court fee was not made good, further time was granted to do the needful by 16-12-1982. On this date an application was submitted by the learned counsel for WAPDA praying that the application may be treated as one under section 12 read with section 151, C.P.C. The matter was adjourned again on various dates and ultimately learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 5-5-1983 dismissed both the applications observing that there was no justification to treat the review petition as a petition under section 12, C.P.C. Merely on the ground that the judgment-debtor has failed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. The other petition which was called review petition was dismissed on account of the failure of judgment-debtor to make up the deficiency in court-fee, even within extended time. It may be noted that even on this date none appeared on behalf of WAPDA.
3. Learned counsel for WAPDA argued that as 5th of May 1983 was the date fixed for arguments only the appearance of the parties or their counsel was not necessary and as such the petition should not have been dismissed on account of non-appearance. It will be seen that the petitions were not dismissed for non-prosecution though that fact was duly noted in the order, dated 5-5-1983 and other reasons for dismissing both the applications were also given.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-decree-holder has argued that the petitioner itself in the heading of the application mentioned section 114 and Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And in view of this it cannot now be argued that the application submitted by them was not a review petition and that they could not legally be asked to pay the court-fee payable on a review petition. It was further argued that the order, dated 4-11-1982 which required WAPDA to pay the court-fee cannot be ignored or avoided by submitting an application for amendment and by praying that application submitted by them be treated as an application under section 12, C.P.C. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as they failed to diligently prosecute the suit as well as the application, dated 27-3- 1982.
5. I have given serious consideration to the respective submissions of the parties and have also gone through the record of the learned trial Court. The situation in which the Authority ultimately finds itself is mainly of its own seeking. In the application submitted by it, section 114 and Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Were unnecessarily inserted. I asked the learned counsel for the parties to point out any ground which will attract the review provisions contained in the Code but they were not able to point out any such thing in the application. Even the learned Senior Civil Judge as is apparent from his order, dated 15-4-1982 treated this application as one under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. But then on 4-11-1982 accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application was a review petition directed the petitioner to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. These orders were passed mechanically without applying judicial mind. Learned Senior Civil Judge failed to apply and follow the principle of law that provision of law mentioned in the heading of any application is not to control the scope of the application, the power to be exercised and the relief to be granted. It is well-settled that pleadings are to be read as a whole and the relief is to be granted in the context of pleas made applying the relevant law. If the application, dated 27-3-1982 is scrutinised from the aforesaid point of view it is apparent that this application was filed invoking the provision contained in subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. And the insertion of other provisions of law in the heading was due to some mistake or misconception. It is, therefore, obvious that the learned Senior Civil Judge acted illegally in treating the application as one under Order XLVII, C.P.C. And consequently the direction passed for making up the deficiency in the court- fee was equally illegal. In this view of the matter the consquential order, dated 5-5-1983 cannot be sustained. Thus, the approach made to the application was not only erroneous but was also the result of non-application of mind, which has resulted into failure of justice. Such a failure of justice cannot be allowed to go unchecked especially when the ex parte decree itself was obtained by admittedly serving summons of the suit on an unidentified clerk. It will be noted that serious questions were raised for determination of the Court in the application dated 27-3-1982 submitted by WAPDA. These questions were:--
(i) whether the suit was properly framed in view of the manner in which the defendant was described;
(ii) what is the effect of the failure of the plaintiff to mention the person on whom the summons were to be served for effecting service of WAPDA; and
(iii) whether the service as was effected was proper and whether on such service the suit could be decreed.
' These questions require serious judicial approach and not the casual approach which was otherwise given by the learned Senior Civil Judge. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the application is to be treated as one under section 12, C.P.C. Then the court-fee fixed was not deficient and in that eventually no additional court-fee could legally be ordered to be paid. In these circumstances the petitioner could not legally be required to pay the court-fee as is leviable on a review petition. The order, dated 4-11-1982 thus was without jurisdiction and the failure to comply with the said order is also inconsequential.
6. The net result of the above discussion is that orders, dated 4-11-1982 and 5-5-1983 are set aside with the result that the application, dated 27-3-1982 shall be deemed to be still pending and shall be disposed of in accordance with law treating the said application as one under section 12(2), C.P.C. However, the cost of the respondents in this Court shall be borne by the petitioner WAPDA as its counsel did not appear on any of the dates when the impugned orders were passed. I am of the view that the impugned orders might not have been passed at all if the learned counsel had appeared and assisted the Court properly. The record shall be sent back to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore immediately. The petitioner shall appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 17- 3-1984.