' By this Single Judgment I propose to dispose of C.Rs, Nos. 123 and 124 of the year, 1994, as both these are inter connected and through both the revision petitions one and the same judgment of the learned Appellate Court has been challenged.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of three revision petitions are, that Muhammad Mussadiq plaintiff (respondent herein in both the revision petitions) filed a suit to the effect that he had passed examination of Dispenser and after passing the said examination the petitioners were required to register him and issue him Category 'C' Registration Certificate; that the plaintiff- respondent had passed the examination of Dispenser in November, 1978 under Roll No,987 from Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore and he was issued a Certificate bearing No,01730 registered No,2167 x 77 dated 24-2-1979; that the plaintiff-respondent applied for Category 'C' registration and for Category 'C' Pharmacy Certificate on 8-12-1987, which application was received by the defendant- petitioners vide Receipt No,4600 dated 8-12-1987; that uptil the institution of the suit i,e, 19-6-1990, the defendant-petitioners had failed to send Category registration Certificate in the name of the plaintiff-respondent as they were bound to do the same because the plaintiff-respondent had passed the requisite examination; that after a lapse of two and a half years the defendant- petitioners did not issue him the requisite certificate and they were reluctant to issue the same; that the plaintiff-respondent gave registered notice to the defendant-petitioners through his counsel on 27-1-1990 in reply to which defendant No,1 admitted the claim of the plaintiff- respondent and stated that after signing the Registration Certificate from defendant No,2, the same would be sent to the plaintiff-respondent; and defendant No,1 gave this reply on 4-2-1990; that in spite of the same admission the plaintiff-respondent was not issued the requisite certificate, due to which the plaintiff-respondent was suffering from mental torture and against on 30-3-1990 another notice was given by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-petitioners through his counsel; that despite several oral and written requests and after admitting the rights of the plaintiff, respondent the defendant-petitioners were refusing to issue the certificate in question since a year before instituting the present suit; that the plaintiff-respondent was being given mental torture due to non-issuance of the requisite certificate, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recovery of Rs,20,000 as damages for mental tortures, disturbance and loss suffered by him.
3. Initially the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was against two defendants i,e, Pharmacy Council N.- W.F.P., Peshawar through its Secretary and Superintendent, Pharmacy Council through Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar but later on implement of defendant No,3 i,e,, Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, was felt to be necessary, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was allowed to make it party and the amended plaint was filed on 7-4-1993; that once the representative of defendant No,3 appeared in the trial Court, but later on he failed to put his appearance before Court, therefore, defendant No,3 was placed ex parte.
4. Defendants 1 and 2 submitted their written statement. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to as many as 6 issues. Evidence of the parties was recorded as they wished to adduce and on conclusion of the suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan vide her judgment and decree dated 19-9-1993, passed a decree for declaration and recovery of damages against Knjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, where against the appeal was partially accepted )y modifying the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court to the extent that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the decree of declaration against all the three defendants. However, it was ordered that the amount of damages would be recovered from defendant No,3 as held by the trial Court. Hence the revision petitions in hand.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner i,e, defendant No,3, the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, contended that the petitioner was made later on party as defendant No,3. Though the trial Court has passed the decree for damages only against the petitioner, but the plaintiff has claimed the said damages only against defendants 1 and 2 as evident from para.7 of the plaint. He further contended that though after the amendment of the plaint by making the petitioner as defendant No,3 the Court granted the petitioner on the basis of already recorded evidence before making the petitioner as party and relied on the same, granted the decree. He also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as none of the defendants are the residents of District D.I. Khan nor carry on business there, where the suit has been instituted, but the addresses of defendants 1 and 2 have been given at Peshawar while that of defendant No,3 at Lahore, and that the cause of action has also not arisen at D.I. Khan, suit should have been instituted either at Peshawar or Lahore according to section 20 of the C . P .O.
7. The learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 who are the petitioners in C.R. No,124/94, in the addition to the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, also raised objection that according to section 79 of the C.P.C. If a suit is filed against the Provincial Government, then it should be in the name of that Government, but here though the suits are against the Provincial Government, but the only concerned department has been arrayed as defendant. As regards the factual aspect, the petitioner i,e, the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore has alleged the certificate as bogus and a forged one and it had never been issued by it. While the stand of the defendants 1 and 2 is that unless the certificate has been verified, the plaintiff cannot be registered and in this respect the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore has declined to verify the certificate to be genine one. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner of C.R. No,1224/94 that the plaintiff is an employee of the P.W.D. And even at the time of his alleged course to have been undergone he was serving in the said Department and while giving support to his this contention, he further contended that the plaintiff never appeared in the Court and it was his special attorney whose statement was recorded and he expressed that the non-examination of the plaintiff himself in the Court on oath might be of an apprehension in his mind of the disclosing of the true facts i,e, at the relevant time he was a Government employee. The Punjab Medical Faculty was also proceeded ex parte as after attending the Court once by its representative, none appeared on its behalf.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the notices were issued to the defendants for the needful from D.I. Khan and because of that fact the Courts at D.I. Khan have got the jurisdiction. On facts he also denied the allegations of the defendants that the certificate is a forged one. I am afraid that the contention of the plaintiff-respondent would have any force as by simply issuing notices by the plaintiff-respondent would bring the matter within the jurisdiction of a Court which otherwise it lacks.
So having the above background of the allegations and counter-allegations and specially the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court which prevails and in consequence of which on acceptance of this revision, the file is sent to the trial Court with the direction that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court/forum, which has got the jurisdiction.
The .Plaintiff can also, if so advised, implead the Government of N.-W.F.P. As party within the contemplation of section 79, C.P.C. Costs shall follow the events.