1. Appellants have challenged rejection of plaint in suit No.3091/85 (old No.1937 of 1983) filed by them on 12-5-1983 against the respondent for recovery of Rs.81,913.75 ordered by IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, South on 15-10-1987.
2. Under the impugned order dated 15-10-1987 the trial Court rejected the plaint. Hence this appeal , Mr. Fariduddin learned counsel for the appellants argued that the plaint was wrongiy rejected and that while considering rejection of plaint the trial Court could not have taken into consideration the judgment dated 3-6-1975 delivered by Senior Civil Judge Rawalpindi revoking authority of sole arbitrator to arbitrate between the parties and that the plaint was properly signed and verified and it contained the facts constituting the cause of action. In support learned counsel for the appellants cited the case of S.M. Faisal v. Additional Estate Officer 1989 CLC 2473.
3. Mr. G.R. Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the suit filed by the appellants was barred by time, was res judicata and that the plaint was not properly signed and verified by all the appellants or by their authorised agent or attorney. It was further argued that no document was filed with the plaint although there was mentioned in para 7 of the plaint about the judgment by the Senior Civil Judge Rawalpindi. -It was also argued that the contract between the parties took place in March 1957 while the suit was filed on 12-5-1983 PLD 1971 Kar. 250 to the case of Abdul Rahim v. K.D.A. 1988 CLC 1207.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit was not time---barred because the construction covered by the agreement went on for a long period and that the appellants had no cause of action till the matter was finalised by the sole arbitrator. The authority of the sole arbitrator was revoked under judgment of a civil Court of Rawalpindi on 3-6-1975. After such revocation of authority of the sole arbitrator, it was for the appellants to file the suit within three years or six years from the date of revocation of the authority. Appellants took another period of over eight years in filing the suit on 12-5-1983. Viewed from any angle, the suit of the appellants was time-barred.
5. One can not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the suit filed by the appellants was barred by res judicata due to the judgment dated 3-6-1975 delivered by the Senior Civil Judge Rawalpindi in case No.478 of _1972. The essential conditions for applicability of the rule of res judicata, are lacking in this case. The matter directly and substantially in issue in case No.478 of 1972 in Court of the Senior Civil Judge Rawalpindi is not directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by the appellants at Karachi. Secondly Muhammad Haseeb Khan party in the case at Rawalpindi was not party in the suit at Karachi. Thirdly competency of the Court of Senior Civil Judge Rawalpindi to adjudicate the matter between the parties is open to question, as the construction in question was to be raised at Karachi, where the agreement between the parties was executed. The Court at Rawalpindi does not appear to have determined any issue, which can arise in the subsequent suit. In this way the judgment by the Court Rawalpindi would not operate as res judicata in the suit filed by the appellants at Karachi.
6. I also disagree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaint was defective for having been signed by one of the appellants only. According to order VI, Rule 14 of C.P.C. Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, provided that where a party pleading, is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. In the instant case the suit was filed by the appellants, who are public functionary except appellant No. l viz Pakistan. On behalf of Pakistan the plaint could be signed by any functionary. In the present case the plaint was signed by Khurshid Ahmad, Executive Engineer who was plaintiff No.3 in the suit and in his verification he has stated that he was authorised by other plaintiffs to sign the plaint. Hence no exception can be taken to competency of the plaint. Even otherwise the plaint could not have been rejected for want of signatures of appellants Nos. l and 2 because such omission is only a defect of procedure and can not affect jurisdiction of the Court and it can be allowed to be corrected at any stage by way of amendment. The verification according to Order VI R.15 shall be by the party or by one of the parties or by a person acquainted with facts of the case.
7. Since the suit filed by the appellants was time-barred, the trial Court was right in rejecting the plaint. In this view of the matter I dismiss this appeal with costs.