1. This suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by plaintiffs Umer Khan, Liaquat Ali and Ashiq Hussain seeking following reliefs:--
(i) Declare fixation of the appeals of the plaintiffs in Islamabad on 15-11-2000 to be without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and against the fundamental rights;
(ii) direct the respondent No,2 to fix the plaintiffs' appeals at Karachi in November, 2000 when the Bench shall be operating here;
(iii) direct the defendants to make proper arrangements for hearing of appeals at Karachi including availability of Benches. The facts in brief as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiffs who were employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation were dismissed from service. The plaintiffs approached firstly High Court and thereafter preferred appeals before Federal Service Tribunal. The said appeals were allowed whereafter P.i.A.C. Preferred appeals in Supreme Court of Pakistan and the appeals were remanded back to defendant No,2. The plaintiffs have further stated that preliminary hearing was made at Karachi and the appeals were admitted. However, due to non-appointment of the Chairman, the Tribunal was not functioning, and now after his appointment, the Tribunal will start functioning. It has been further stated in the plaint that the defendant No,2 at the direction of the Registrar, has transferred the appeals of the plaintiffs to Islamabad and the hearing is fixed on 15- 11-2000. The plaintiffs further stated that they have lodged protest and requested the defendant No,2 to fix the appeals at Karachi but the said request has been denied. The plaintiffs have called in question the hearing of their appeals at Islamabad instead of Karachi and it has been inter alia stated in the plaint that fixation of the appeals by defendant No,2 at Islamabad is bad in law, unlawful, without jurisdiction, against fundamental rights, void, ab initio and has no legal effect because under the Constitution of Pakistan inexpensive and expeditious justice has been guaranteed which is a fundamental right of the appellants. It has been further stated in the plaint that fixation of case at Islamabad would mean incurring further expenditure which the plaintiffs cannot afford as they are jobless. It has also been mentioned in the plaint that impugned action is discriminatory as their appeals are to be heard by the Tribunal at Karachi and there is no plausible reason to discriminate the plaintiffs. Though the suit was valued at Rs,20,00,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee however no court-fee has been paid and an application being C.M.A. No,9038 of 2000 under section 149, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. Has been filed alongwith the suit praying that payment of court- fee may be condoned in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court however no citation has been made of the said judgment. The suit was fixed in Court on 30-10-2000 for hearing of C.M.A. No,9038 of 2000. At that stage the learned advocate for the plaintiff was asked, as to how this suit is maintainable in view of the legal bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, and as to whether the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs, falls within the ambit of sections 42 and 56 of Specific Relief Act. I have heard Dr. Farough Nasim, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the case-law cited by the learned counsel in support of his contentions. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that language of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive and as such the suit for declaration as sought in the suit can be filed even if it does not stand covered under section 42 of the Specific 'Relief Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to an unreported judgment in Suit No,764 of 1999 delivered by my learned brother Atta-ur-Rehman, J. In the case of M/s. H.A. Rahim and Sons (Pvt.) Limited v.
2. Province of Sindh and another. In that suit vires of sections 9 and 10 of the Sindh Finance Act, 1994 and section 5 of the Sindh Finance Act, 1996 were called in question and an objection was raised by the learned D.A.-G that validity of the laws could not be tested by a Civil Court in a civil suit filed under section 9 of the C.P.C. Repelling the said contention it was held in that suit that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide such suit. Reliance was placed on a number of authorities cited in that judgment. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in that suit. However, the facts of the instant suit are altogether different from the said suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also referred to the judgment reported in' 2000 YLR 2724 (Philips Electrical Industries of Pakistan Limited v. Pakistan and others) decided by a Division Bench of this Court which was a Constitutional petition and the Court was. Exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan while deciding the controversy in that petition whereas in a suit under sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act, the principles governing the same are quite different.
3. After going through the case-law cited at the bar and after considering of the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, I am of the considered view that the suit as filed is not maintainable according to law because there is a clear bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Moreover, the learned counsel has not pointed out any such lawwhich has been violated by the Federal Service Tribunal while fixing the hearing of the appeals at Islamabad. A party cannot insist that his case should be heard at a particular place or by a particular Judge or Bench. Any such direction in the form of declaration or injunction shall be violative of sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. The learned counsel has lastly argued that in view of the financial hardship being faced by the plaintiffs being jobless for last so many years, their case requires sympathetic consideration.
5. Having all sympathies for plaintiffs, the fact remains that legal position cannot be changed or altered on compassionate grounds. However, it is expected that if this aspect of the matter is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it may consider the case sympathetically in view of the financial problems and difficulties of the plaintiffs as stated by the learned counsel. I am of the view that instant suit cannot be admitted and the plaint is liable to be rejected being barred by law. Resultantly, the plaint is rejected. So far C.M.A. No,9038 of 2000 is concerned, the plaintiffs are directed to deposit the required court- fee within one month from the date of this order, failing which the office is directed to get it recovered as per law and rules.