1. ' Civil Suit No,170 of 1994 filed by respondent No,1 in this petition against the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3 is pending in the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. An application was filed before that Court on behalf of the plaintiff for removal of Province of Sindh and the Additional Deputy Commissioner as defendants and the consequential deletion of the pleadings in the plaint.
2. ' The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application observing that in her opinion there will be no harm if the defendants Nos.5 and 6 continue to be party. This order was challenged by way of Civil Revision No,13 of 1998 before Vth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Revision'
3. Court set asidea the impugned order and allowed the application under Order 1, rule 10 read with Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. This Constitutional petition has, therefore, been filed, practically, as an appeal against the order passed in Revision, which the law deliberately omits to provide.
4. ' Mr. Hassan Mehmood Baig, learned counsel for the respondent No,1/plaintiff contended that defendants Nos.5 and 6 were joined in the suit as notice issued by defendant No,6 in an appeal filed by present petitioners before him was challenged on the point of jurisdiction, but the defendant No,6 proceeded with the appeal and allowed it, and his order has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner. According to him the plea to challenge the jurisdiction of defendant No,6 has become infructuous and there remains no necessity to implead defendant Nos.5 and 6.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Hussain Motiwala, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the application in question was filed at a belated stage when issues were already framed, and by the proposed deletion and amendment character of the suit was changed and it ceased to be a first class suit, ' In support of his plea about maintainability of this petition, Mr. Motiwala relied upon the case of 'Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and two others (1984 SCM R 1284). At that stage, leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider question as to whether or not judgments and orders of Courts of general and plenary jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, should be allowed to be challenged in High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction specially when legislature has barred further appeals or revisions. Final decision in that matter was reported in 1988 SCM R 322. On this point, it was observed that in view of clause (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution, the Court was not in a position to lay down the wide proposition that the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court is not at all invokable in respect of an order passed by a Civil Court. It was, however, made clear that in saying so, they did not mean to water down the general observations made in 'PLD 1981 SC 246' and 'PLD 1981 SC 522' discouraging vexatious and incompetent Constitutional petitions filed against final orders passed by the civil Courts within the ambit of their jurisdiction unless the order is wholly void or coram non judice.
6. The principle is, therefore, clear and it is that whether the law makers intend to end litigation at a certain stage and deliberately omit to provide an appeal or revision, the extraordinary remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be availed of on the plea that no adequate remedy has been provided by law at that stage, except in cases where the order impugned is wholly void or coram non judice.
7. ' The present case is not one falling in the category of this exception. The learned Additional District Judge had the revisional Jurisdiction and e properly exercised this jurisdiction.
8. ' On his contention that the amendment should not have been allowed, Mr. Motiwala has cited almost the same rulings that he relied upon before the revisional Court. The learned Additional District Judge has considered this case law and has discussed them in his judgment.
9. The cause of action to claim relief against defendants Nos.5 and 61C had extinguished and there could have been no justification to continue litigation against these defendants. No illegality in the impugned order could be successfully pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.