1. Applicant Printing Corporation of Pakistan has filed this Civil Revision Application against an order- dated 28-3-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1993 by VII th Additional District Judge, Karachi East.
2. Respondents Jamil Ahmad and 24 others filed Suit No. 1079 of 1993 with following prayers: "(a) to declare that defendants have no right to evict the plaintiffs from their Quarters number of which is mentioned against the names of the each plaintiff in the title of the suit without adopting due course of law.
(b) That defendants have no right to make the plaintiffs shelter less without providing them a substitute of that shelter.
(c) That plaintiffs so long as they are in services of the defendant No.1 are entitled to live in the accommodation provided by the defendants and also enjoy the structural improvement made by the plaintiffs.
(d) Issue Permanent Injunction against the defendants restraining them from evicting the plaintiffs or demolishing the Quarters name of which is mentioned against the names of each plaintiff respectively without adopting due course of law.
(e) Issue Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing structural improvement made by the plaintiffs in respect of their respective Quarters."
3. In their plaint, the respondents claimed that some of them were employees of the applicant and some of them were legal heirs of employees of the applicant and in such capacity they were occupying the quarters in suit for over 20 years. Respondents claimed being in possession of the quarters in suit and averred that they had acquired right of easement over the same. The respondents took exception to the notices issued to them by the applicant, asking them to remove unauthorised construction/encroachment from the shops in suit. Respondents pleaded that the notices were issued with mala fide intention because the alteration under objection was already known to the applicant who never objected to the same. The alleged unauthorised construction was said to have been raised by the respondents at their own cost. On the basis of said facts the respondents claimed that they had right to continue their possession over the disputed quarters and the applicant had no authority to demolish the same directly or through law enforcing agencies, who were alleged to be bent upon demolishing the quarters in suit. It was alleged that the applicant was planning to demolish houses of the respondents, on the pretext of demolishing the encroachment.
4. With their suit the respondents also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. For issue of interim injunction restraining the applicant from demolishing houses/quarters of the respondents or evicting the respondents from the same.
5. Said application was opposed by the applicant who filed counter-- affidavit of its Manager denying the allegations: After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court under an order dated 14-9-1993 took view that suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable. After taking such view, the trial Court dismissed the suit as well as the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C Said order, dated 14-9-1993 was challenged by the respondents in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1983 in Court of VII th Additional District Judge, Karachi East. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case for disposal on merits with the direction that the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Be reheard and decided on merits. Hence this revision application.
6. Mr. Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial Court had rightly rejected the plaint as the respondents had no cause of action. It was further argued that the respondents had no valuable rights in respect of the quarters in suit. It was added that the respondents Nos.7, 8, 10 and 25 were not allottee of the quarters and the respondents Nos.9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 have already retired from service of the applicant, while respondents Nos. 19 and 20 were widows. Rest of the respondents were conceded to be in service of the applicant. It was contended that after retirement from service of the applicant, an employee has no right to retain the quarter allotted to him during the time he was in service. It was also argued that the Government employees obtaining Government quarters by virtue of their being such Government employees, become licensees in those quarters with no vested right to continue in possession of the same. Learned counsel for the applicant challenged view of the Appellate Court that the respondents had cause of action, and supported order of the trial Court. , In support learned counsel for the applicant cited the cases of: (i) Asghar Ali v. P.K. Shahani and others 1992 CLC 2282, (ii) Muhammad Shaft v. Punjab Province through Collector Vehari and another 1982 CLC 55, (iii) Lt.-Col. M. Ahsanul Haq v. Sh. Manzoorul Haq and others PLD 1979 Note 120 at p.90, (iv) S.M. Hanif and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others NLR 1982 CU 231, (v)
7. Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain PLD 1962 SC 75.
8. While dismissing the suit, the trial Court under her order, dated 14-9-1993, took view that in the suit there is a grave and serious misjoinder of parties and causes of action, that no right can flow from occupation of a Government Quarter to raise construction over these or to occupy adjoining pieces of land as a trespasser and that allotment of Government quarters to the Government employees, is connected with relationship of employer and employee between them. Trial Court was of the view that allottee of a quarter owned by his employer is licencee in the same. Expressing such views, the trial Court found the suit to be non-maintainable but chose to dismiss it rather than rejecting the plaint.
9. Under the impugned judgment dated 28-3-1994 learned VII th Additional District Judge, Karachi East, while remanding the suit to the trial Court, expressed the view that the plaint disclosed that a specific cause of action had accrued to the respondents to file the suit and hence the plaint cannot be sutrimarily rejected by importing the law of easement, when contents of the plaint show valuable rights existing in favour of the respondents.
10. There is no cavil with the view expressed in the case of Asghar Ali v. P.K. Shahani and others 1992 CLC 2282 that the jurisdiction to reject a plaint is not conditional upon the making of an application and power may be exercised at any stage even suo mote. Similarly in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Punjab Province through Collector Vehari and another 1982 CLC 55 the view taken was that a plaint can be rejected by a Court while disposing of an application for grant of temporary injunction because Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Confers wide powers on the Courts to reject a plaint at any stage of the proceedings if the suit is barred by any provision of law. In the case of Lt.-Col. M.
11. Ahsanul Haq v. Sh. Manzoorul Haq and others PLD 1979 Note 120 at p.90, the view taken was that an application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Can be considered by the trial Court in absence of the written statement and without making an inquiry into the questions raised and that the Court had jurisdiction to reject the plaint suo motu. In the instant case the trial Court found the suit of the respondents to be not maintainable but did not reject the plaint. At that stage of the case, the trial Court was not competent to dismiss the suit without recording evidence. In this situation the Appellate Court rightly set aside the order about dismissal of the suit and remanded the suit to the trial Court, although the grounds on which such order was based can be called into question.
12. However, nothing is wrong with the operative part of the impugned judgment and consequently no interference under section 115 is permissible in the circumstances.
13. It is difficult to agree with the view of learned Additional District Judge that a specific cause of action had accrued to the respondents to file the suit. However, it would not be in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit, to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge.
14. This would not go against interests of justice because the matter is at the stage of trial. I would, however, observe that the trial Court would not be influenced or bound by the observations made by Additional District Judge or by this Court and would decide the suit on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.
15. With these observations, this Revision Application stands dismissed in limine. Such short order was, passed by me on 20-9-1994 and these are reasons for the same.