1. ' The present application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Karachi (South) I Civil Appeal No,138 of 1985.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the present application briefly stated are as follows: ' Respondent S. Hussain Shah was employed as a Watchman in the year 1971 in the Ward & Watch Department of the Karachi Port Trust. On 22-11-1987 at about 10.00 a.m. While he and other watchmen were on round they found that eighteen labourers were loading milk powder bags on the trucks in Shed No,23 without any K.P.T. Entry pass or token. The labourers were taken by him and others to the office of the Ward & Watch and produced before Incharge Officer, Mr. M.A.Q. Khan for necessary action. In the meanwhile Jamadar of the said workers came to Mr. M.A.Q. Khan and produced tokens of the labourers and all of them after verification of the tokens were let off.
3. Thereafter the Jamadar of the eighteen labourers filed a complaint alleging that they were let off after obtaining illegal gratification of Rs,200. An enquiry was ordered against him, Sultan Muhammad, Watchman Noor Khan and MA.Q. Khan. According to the allegations made in the plaint at least three enquiries were conducted by different officers of the applicants. It appears Mr. A.Q. Khan, Assistant Traffic Manager conducted the enquiry for the third time against him and submitted his report which necessitated filing of the suit by the respondent.
4. ' The respondent filed the suit for declaration and injunction seeking a declaration that enquiry report dated 11-1-1983 submitted by Mr. A.Q. Khan was illegal, mala fide and unlawful and based on perverse findings. Permanent injunction was also sought restraining the applicants from giving any effect to the said enquiry report. The suit of the respondent was registered as Suit No,927 of 1983 in the Court of XXXVI, Civil Judge at Karachi. The suit was resisted by the applicants and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Judge framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(2) Whether Defendant is entitled to conduct three enquiries in the matter of plaintiff and whether enquiries have been conducted according to law?
(3) Whether the findings of the enquiry report of 3rd Enquiry Officer Mr. A.Q. Khan is perverse, erroneous and mala fide?
(4) What should the decree be?"
5. ' Both the parties led evidence oral and documentary and the trial Judge on the basis of evidence and after hearing them decided the issues Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and answered the issue No,3 in affirmative. On account of such findings the trial Judge decreed the suit with costs.
6. ' The applicants then filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge mentioned hereinabove. Their appeal was decided by the First Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) by his judgment passed on 28-1-1987 dismissing the appeal.
7. ' It is against the two judgments mentioned hereinabove that the present application has been filed under section 115, C.P.C.
8. ' Mr. S. Hamid Hussain, Advocate appearing for the applicants referred to para 8, of the memo of Revision Application wherein it is stated that during the pendency of the suit respondent had filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 in the 5th Sindh Labour Court at Karachi praying thai dismissal order dated 26-11-1983 passed by the applicants be set aside and respondent be taken back in service with back benefits. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by his order dated 12-9-1985 allowed the application and ordered to reinstate the respondent in service with back benefits. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed. The applicants then filed a Constitutional petition before this Court against the order passed by the Labour Court and Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. It is on this ground that he pleaded that as the matter is pending adjudication by way of a constitutional petition before this Court the judgment of the two Courts below be set aside by this Court. He further contended that the issue whether the enquiry report was mala fide has been wrongly decided as no specific allegations alleging mala fides have been stated in the plaint itself.
9. The ground urged by the Advocate for the applicants indeed has no force because filing of a suit and litigation arising therefrom may not entitle a person to seek remedy by way of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of. Pakistan. Conversely merely the pendency of a Constitutional petition filed by the opposite party by itself does not entitle such party to have the judgments impugned in a Revision Application set aside on that score only.
10. The counsel appearing for the applicants was not able to show that any ground existed for disturbing the concurrent findings on facts recorded by the two Courts below or that the subordinate Courts had acted without jurisdiction or illegally to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. For the foregoing reasons by my short order passed on 9-10- 1990 I had dismissed this Revision with no order as to the costs.