1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in a suit for possession of suit land which falls in Shamlat. The respondents claiming to be the co- sharers and owners in Shamlat filed the suit against the petitioners on the allegation that they being tenants' had flouted the conditions by making serious infringement thereof. The petitioners/defendants' plea was of denial of title. The respondents' suit was dismissed. Their appeal, however, was partially allowed and the petitioners' Civil Revision having been dismissed they have sought leave to appeal.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance raised a pure legal question; namely, that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have filed the suit in representative capacity on behalf of all other co-sharers of Shamlat. He commented upon the approach in the impugned judgment that the respondents could have represented similar interest of other co-sharers in the Shamlat.
3. Learned counsel vehemently contended that word "same" could not be equated with "similar". After some discussion when he himself observed some judgments wherein same had also been interpreted as similar, he could not advance the arguments much further. We also feel that at this stage the point raised is one of hypertechnical nature and in any case does not affect the merits of the case.
4. ' Learned counsel then contended that the respondents! Suit essentially was for the ejectment of the petitioners on account of infringement of the conditions of tenancy. Therefore, as argued, according to him the trial Court should have seen the plaint only and not the written statement filed by the petitioners so as to determine; whether, the jurisdiction in this case was of the Civil Court or of the revenue forum; as according to him, there was no clear averment in the plaint that the petitioners had denied the title.
5. ' When questioned as to what would have happened if the course suggested by the learned counsel would have been followed by the Civil Court. He replied that the plaint should have been returned to be presented before the revenue forum. When further questioned that on the revenue forum learning from the written statement of the petitioners that it was of denial of the title of the respondents, what should then have been done, the learned counsel replied that then the revenue forum could have returned the plaint to the respondents to be presented before the Civil Court as it would then, have involved a proper dispute on title to be resolved by the Civil Court and not by the revenue forum. This type of approach to litigation in our country to say the least is a part of remnants of the Anglo Saxon approach on the question of technicalities. We in the past attached too much importance on these aspects at the cost of equitable considerations and decisions on merits. It is also one of those examples where litigants are trapped in technicalities rather than admitted to take advantage of procedural laws in order to advance the cause of justice.
6. ' Be that as it may, this branch of legal thought is now easing out of our jurisprudence and is being filled by the rules of. Islamic philosophy. We while adopting and relying on the latter are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel and repel the same.
7. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the non-party co-sharers in Shamlat should not and could not have been allowed any benefit of the decree passed in this case against the petitioners/defendants' side. We heard the learned counsel today at length on this subject in another case; namely, Civil Petition No,123-P of 1991 = 1992 SC MR 1208. Similar arguments having been repelled therein we adopted certain suggestions made by the learned counsel himself for the benefit of the non-party co-sharers. The same would fully apply to this cask also. With this observation leave to appeal is refused.