' The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit filed by him for recovery of Rs.25,000 as damages in which WAPDA through its Chairman has been sued along with defendants Nos.2 and 3 namely Zaki- urRehman, Executive Engineer, GEPCO, Gujranwala and Salah-ud-Din, SDO, GEPCO, Civil Lines Sub- Division, Satellite Town, Gujranwala. The suit was contested by filing written statement by the respondents. While the same was pending before the trial Court, an application under Order XXVII, rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants that though defendants Nos.2 and 3 had acted and performed their governmental duty yet they had been sued in private capacity, therefore, they should not be treated as party in their personal capacity. The said application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff and was eventually accepted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala vide order dated 4-5-2002 which order was challenged by the petitioner through a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujranwala on 24-2-2003. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, these, orders are sought to be assailed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that even if WAPDA is treated at par with the Government, the names of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 could not be deleted as they were personally liable for the mischief played with the petitioner. Reference has been made by the learned counsel to Secretary, B & R, Government of West Pakistan and 4 others v. Fazal Ali Khan PLD 1971 Karachi 625 and Tahir A.
Khan v. Central Board of Revenue and others 2003 YLR 196.
' The learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the petition has contended that since the Authority was prepared and had undertaken to contest the matter and to accept the liability on behalf of its employees, the Courts below have not acted illegally in the matter and it is not a fit case for the exercise of writ jurisdiction or to interfere with such orders. He has placed reliance upon WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18 and WAPDA v. Muhammad Zuba-ir etc. 1997 PLC (C.S.) 189; Rana Mamoon Rasheed v. Kokab Noorani Okarvi and .4 others PLD 1999 Karachi 257 and Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCMR 322.
3. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The perusal of the plaint and averments made therein go to show that inaction on the part of respondents Nos.2 and 3 which was alleged, pertained to and had nexus with their official duties. In the application made by the respondents under Order XXVII, rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it was clearly mentioned that the competent authority had decided to contest the suit in its official capacity and would be liable for its consequences. It was, thus, prayed that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 may not be treated as party in their personal capacity. Such a stance of the respondents/defendants and assurance so extended found favour with the learned trial Court which accepted the application. The order has been upheld by the revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. Leaving aside the technical aspect of the matter, suffice it to observe that insofar as the cause of the petitioner/plaintiff brought before the Court through the suit is cohcerned, his rights in the eventuality of a decree if so passed in his favour was fully safeguarded in view of the undertaking and assurance contained in the application made by the respondents/defendants. It may be mentioned that the trial Court which is seized of the matter can still take care of the matter at the conclusion of the proceeding, and pass appropriate order as may be warranted by the circumstances. Needless to observe that in writ jurisdiction the exercise and grant of relief is discretionary and the Court may have to keep in view so many aspects of the matter while exercising or declining the same. It could not be overlooked that the order impugned was passed on an interlocutory application, and interference with such a matter in any case is not appropriate. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner had their own peculiar circumstances and do not get attracted to the facts of this case. I am informed that issues have been framed and the evidence is yet to be produced by the petitioner/plaintiff. He should proceed to take expeditious steps of producing evidence, so that the trial is conducted by the Court and the matter is decided without delay.
' In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the orders passed by the Courts below.
' The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.