This F.A.O: being incompetent is treated as civil revision and may be registered as such. It assails the order, dated 10-11-1985 of the learned District, Judge, Mianwali, whereby the respondent- plaintiff's appeal against the rejection of his plaint was accepted and the case was remanded.
2.The respondent sued the petitioner who 'is Controller of the Examinations of-the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha for damages to the tune of Rs.24,000 for malfeasance in having failed to supply him the roll number for the Matriculation Examination of the year 1985. He alleged that he submitted the relevant. Form on 26-1-1985 through registered post along with receipt of having deposited the necessary fee of Rs.300 in the United Bank, Kundian but did not receive the roll number for the examination till it was almost over. He added that when he called upon the petitioner on 18-3-1985 at Sargodha in presence of Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Hanif to enquire as to why after all he was not supplied the roll number, he was told by the petitioner that besides official fee he had to pay him a further sum of Rs.500 as 'Bukhshish'. He observed that by so denying him the roll number he was made to lose a valuable year of his career besides facing humiliation and agony for which he was entitled to be compensated.
3. The petitioner made an application under Order VII, rule. 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the grounds that he could not be sued for his official act; that the civil Court at Mianwali did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as there was no sub-office of the Board located there, and lastly that sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 barred the suit.
4. The trial Court upholding the objection raised in the said application proceeded to reject the plaint but in appeal the learned District Judge reversed it principally for the reason that rejection of plaint could be ordered only if it itself did not disclose a cause of action etc. And that it could not be allowed on the strength of pleas raised in defence.
5.Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate for the petitioner reiterated the objections but, with respect, there can be no manner of doubt about the proposition of law as stated by the learned District Judge. It is always the contents of the plaint that have to be kept in view and if their plain reading discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected simply because quite formidable objections are raised in defence. In this case the averment made in the plaint is that their petitioner allegedly withheld the roll number of the respondent with a view to compel him to pay illicit gratification to him. True or false, the allegation apparently discloses commission of a tortious act on the part of the petitioner indeed very serious as the respondent was made to lose a valuable year of his educational career. He complained of agony and humiliation as a result of the said malfeasance and ostensibly could ask for re-compense in the shape of damages. Provision of Order VII. Rule 11, C.P.C. Could not by any conceivable construction be applied, to such a plaint.
6.Conversely, the plea that the petitioner was immune under the provision of the relevant Statute for his official acts or that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction, cannot be held sufficient. To reject the plaint. If any official exceeds limits in asking for illicit gratification, there may be no immunity from action at law, all the more if he misuses his official position to cause wrongful loss to a young budding student who claimed to have done all required to complete his candidature for the first important examination of his career. Reliance may be placed for this view on Inayatullaji and others v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1984 CLC 473. Counsel laid a considerable stress that civil Court at Mianwali did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Board was located at Sargodha and even alleged demand of illicit money was made there. In spite of it the plaint could not be rejected. In such event it has to be returned for purposes of presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction but in this case, I feel there is D ample reason to think otherwise.
The roll number had to be sent to the respondent-plaintiff at Mianwali wherefrom, he submitted his application Form. If he does not receive the same at his place, it would mean that a part of the cause of action accrues there. The Courts at Mianwali, therefore, have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7.In my view the impugned order does not suffer from any defect so as to call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.