1. ' Applicant Pakistan International Air Lines Corporation has filed this Revision Application against an order dated 30-5-1991 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Karachi East in Civil Appeal No, 120/1990.
2. ' Admittedly, respondent Wajid Ali Khan was in service of the applicant till 6-8-1989 when he was removed from service under Regulation 88 of PIAC Employees (S&D) Regulations 1985 read with section 10 of the PIAC Act, 1956. Removal of the respondent from service of the applicant was in consequence of his arrest by Custom Authorities on 8-2-1989 on the allegation of having smuggled gold into Pakistan, and of his facing trial for such charge in Court of the Special Judge (Customs), Karachi. As an employee of the applicant, the respondent was given the flat in suit bearing No, B-17/196 at PIA Staff Township Karachi Airport. After his removal from service, the respondent has been issued a letter dated 31-8-1989 requiring him to vacate the flat in suit. This made the respondent file Suit No, 1827/1989 against the applicant, seeking declaration that the applicant had no right to eject the respondent from the flat in suit and that the notice for vacating the flat was illegal, null and void and unenforceable. Respondent also prayed for issue of permanent injunction restraining the applicant from ejecting him from the flat in suit.
3. ' During pendency of the suit on 20-1-1990 the applicant filed an application for rejection of the plaint, on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action, that it was barred under law and that no relief prayed in the plaint can be granted. After hearing counsel for the parties the trial Court accepted said application and rejected the plaint under an order dated 8-8-1990.
4. ' Respondent challenged rejection of his plaint by filing Civil Appeal No: 120/90 which was accepted on 23-5-1991 by VII Additional District Judge Karachi East under the impugned order. Hence this Revision.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per para 8 of the plaint the respondent was removed from applicant's service and as per Standing Order 16(1) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance, the respondent was entitled to retain the flat in suit for two months and as such his prayer in the suit that the applicant had no right to eject him from the flat in suit, was npt maintainable, and the notice of eviction cannot be challenged and consequently respondent's suit was not maintainable and his plaint was rightly rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the applicant cited the cases of:
(i) Abdur Rehman Mobashir and others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari and 4 others (PLD 1978 Lah.
6. 113).
(ii) Burmah Eastern Ltd: v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union (PLD 1967 Dacca 190).
(iii) Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (PLD 1991 Kar.
7. 365).
8. ' Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned counsel for the respondent argued that removal of the respondent from applicant's service was not final, because his review application was pending. It was added that the respondent was entitled to retain possession of the flat in suit, till final disposal of his review application. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plaint filed by the respondent disclosed the cause of action and it raised contested issues and hence it did not merit rejection. In support learned counsel cited the case of Abdul Majid Khan v. The Eastern General Insurance Co.
9. (PLD 1970 Kar. 70), which does not appear to cover the point at issue as it relates to Motor Insurance.
10. There is preponderance of case-law to the effect that if the suit is incompetent it is duty of the Court to reject the plaint on a perusal thereof. In the case of Burmah Eastern Ltd: PLD 1967 Dacca 190 the wisdom behind rejection of the plaint was explained in the following words: "In the first place, it contemplates that a still-born suit should be properly buried, at its inception, so that nq further time is consumed on a fruitless litigation. Secondly it gives plaintiff a chance to retrace his steps at the earliest possible moment, so that if permissible under law, he may found a properly constituted case. Order VII, rule 11 of the Code, enumerates certain categories under which the Court is called upon to reject a plaint, but, it is obvious that they are not exhaustive. It appears from the language of rule 11 of Order VII that it requires that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse, as not being permitted by law."
11. ' In the case of Abdur Rehman Mobashir and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 113), it was held that the principle of Order VII rule 11 is not attracted to a case at the stage where the only question is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. In the case of Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (PLD 1991 Kar. 365), the observations made in the case of Burmah Eastern Limited v. Burmah Eastern Employee's Union (PLD 1967 Dacca 190) have been reproduced.
12. In the instant case it is clear from the plaint itself that the respondent has been removed from service. If at any subsequent stage his re-instatement is ordered that would create new rights in his favour. The provisions contained in Standing Order 16(1) of said Ordinance, admit of no exception. In the face of said provisions, the main prayers of the respondent cannot be granted.
13. ' In the circumstances, the plaint was rightly rejected. This Revision Application is accordingly accepted and the impugned order is set aside. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.