KINNA IRD COLLEGE FOR WOMEN through Principle vs MARIA ISABEL

' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- Through this revision petition, petition, the petitioner-institution has questioned the validity of an order dated 16-5-2015, passed by learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed being pre-mature.

2. Shortly the facts as stated in the record are; that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration alongwith damages, on the ground, that respondent/plaintiff joined the petitioner- institution as a "Lecturer on Contract" for teaching "Spanish" in the year 2004, for al period of one year. Subsequently, the contract was extended for successive year up till February, 2009, and thereafter no further extension was made and lastly prayed that the act of the petitioner/defendant be declared illegal and unlawful. The petitioner/ defendant appeared in response of the notice and instead of submitting the written statement, filed an application under Order VII,. Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the rejection of the plaint on the ground, that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and no relief under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, could be granted.

' As regard the damages claimed by the respondent/plaintiff it was alleged, that those could not be claimed being barred by limitation.

' The application was contested by the petitioner/defendant on the ground; that the factual controversy does disclose a cause of action and can only be disposed of by recording the evidence.

' The learned trial court after hearing the arguments dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions taken in the civil revision and submitted, that the order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel' for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments titled "Ilyas Ahmed v. Muhammad Munir and 10 others" (PLD 2012 Sindh 92), "Muhammad Iqbal v. Altaf Hussain and others" (2011 CLC 250), "Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur v. Anwar Ali and 315 others" (2000 CLC 1362), "Messrs Karsaz Construction Company through Partner Muhammad Hanif v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabaa and another" (1999 CLC 1719), Muhammad Hamdan Shaikh v. The Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Naziniabad, Karachi and 2 others" (PLD 1998 Karachi 59), "Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Ashraf & Sons through its Proprietor" (1995 MLD 390), "Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and 3 others v. Anwar Hussain fatoi" (PLD 1982 Karachi 313) and "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and S others v. Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi" (PLD 1979 Karachi 640).

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The contents of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff were perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, which disclose a cause of action and can only be decided by recording the evidence of the parties. Even otherwise, the law favours the adjudication on merits and particularly after the insertion of Article 10-A in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is mandatory to provide a fair right of trial, therefore, the learned trial court rightly dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner although argued the case at some length but could not point out any jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity with the order impugned herein and further the law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the instant case. Moreover, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, have already been discussed by the learned trial court while dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the 'well-reasoned findings of learned trial court.

6. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed, with no order as to cost.