Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No. 268‑D, 1986/BWP, decided on 18th October, 1986
‑‑O VII, R. 11‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4(1) (b)‑‑Promotion of civil servant, challenged through civil suit by plaintiff‑‑Rejection of plaint as barred by law‑‑Revision‑‑Trial Court quite competent to reject plaint at any time before or after framing issues‑‑Order of Trial Court rejecting plaint after receiving written statement, but without framing issues, holding that declaratory suit filed by plaintiff was barred under S.4(1)(b) of Act IX of 1974, was upheld by Appellate Court‑‑Contention that after receiving written statement of defendant Court should not reject plaint without framing issues, was repelled in revision by High Court.
Syed Inam Hussain for Petitioner
On 19‑9‑1985, Muhammad Siddique petitioner filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 16‑4‑1983 of Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan with regard to the promotion of respondents Qamar‑ud‑Din and Muhammad Zaman Khan was illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff /petitioner. The trial Court, rejected the plaint on 5‑1‑1986 on the ground that the suit was barred by law. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional District Judge. I, Rahimyar Khan who dismissed it on 12‑6‑1986.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since written statement had been filed, therefore, the trial Court should not have rejected the plaint without framing issues.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the trial Court was quite competent to reject plaint at any time before or after framing issues. The plaint accepted at the face value indicates that the suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff was barred under section 4 (1) proviso (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. There can be no two opinions that promotion and seniority of civil servants were included in and pertain to terms and conditions of service and as such the present suit was barred by law.
4. For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./M‑28/L Revision petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer