1. ' This suit has been filed for several reliefs outlined at paragraph 87 of plaint. The plaintiff has, inter alia, claimed large sums, same running in lakhs of rupees as his dues and/or compensation arising from alleged termination from service. The court-fee of Rs,15,000 in all, has been paid. The suit has been filed against 52 defendants which includes Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman). The office has noted following three objections:--
(1) Please state how the officials named from Serial Nos.46 to 52 are joined as defendants including Wafaqi Mohtasib seeking no relief against them?
(2) How the officials who have passed orders at different stages in their official capacity are sued in their personal capacity?
(1) Please state how the relief claimed in prayer clauses (h) and (i) are in time. Separate court-fee on each independent relief/reliefs to be paid, having separate cause of action at different dates?
2. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff has made statement in presence of the plaintiff that the name of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) appearing at Serial No,51 in the list of the defendants is dropped and such statement in writing duly signed by the plaintiff and the Advocate shall be placed on record during the course of the day. The learned counsel has stated that the defendants at Serial Nos.46 and 52 are pro forma defendants but their presence in the suit would be necessary for collateral purposes. This covers the objection No,1 noted by the office. As regards objection No,2 the learned counsel has stated that those defendants who had dealt with the case of the appellant in their official capacity are necessary defendants as mala fides are alleged against them. The objection No,3 relates to the payment of court-fee on several reliefs. The learned counsel has placed reliance on section 2 of the Court Fees (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (Ordinance VII of 1977) and submitted that maximum court-fee payable is not to exceed 15,000 Rupees and the plaintiff has paid the court-fee of Rs,15,000 and no more court-fee is payable. He has made reference to a Suit No,242 of 1984 (Abdul Latif son of Mubarak Hussain v. Pakistan and Printing Corporation of Pakistan) and urged that suit is of identical nature and it has been admitted on payment of maximum court-fee of Rs,15,000. He has also made reference to a case of Aslam Industries Ltd. v. Pakistan Edible Corporation and others, .Reported in 1983 SCMR 316, admitted by the Supreme Court for consideration of similar question as agitated in this case.
3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the suit is admitted subject, however, to all just exceptions. Summons to issue to the defendants Nos.1 to 50 and 52 while name of the defendant No,51 stands deleted in view of the statement by the learned counsel already referred to above.