ABID ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
1. The civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 28-7-1988 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge (South), Karachi, whereby he allowed the Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 15-11-1987 passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, (South) Karachi.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the petitioner filed a suit being Suit No.1867 of 1987 against respondents for injunction. It is alleged in the plaint that the petitioner is employee of the respondents as U.D.C. in the office of the respondent No. 1, since the date of his appointment that is 27-7-1986. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to the appointment of the petitioner his father Syed Zahoor Ali was in the service of the respondents and after completion of his service which is about more than 40 years retired on 2-9-1986 and as per policy principles and rules of the respondents the petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondents on 27-7-1986 because the sons and other relatives of the Railway Employee get preference in the service. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the retirement of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted an application to respondent No.l stating therein that the quarter which is in possession of the father of the petitioner may be allotted to the petitioner, on the basis of the "Father to Son" policy of the respondents. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to the respondents that Quarter No.24/4, Railway Quarters, Keamari, Karachi, be allotted in the name of the- petitioner on the basis of "Father to Son" Policy. Alongwith the plaint the petitioner filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner and issued notice to the respondent. The respondents resisted the application. The trial Court after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties confirmed the interim order by order dated 15-11-1987.
3. The respondents being aggrieved against the order of the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, (South) Karachi (sic) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved against the judgment dated 28-7-1988 has filed the present revision.
5. I have heard Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami in support of the civil revision and Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed for the respondent. I have perused the order dated 15-11-1987 and judgment dated 28-7-1988. I have also gone through the plaint in the suit, application, affidavit in support of the application and also the counter- affidavit. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents has suggested that he has no objection if the order dated 15-11-1987 and Judgment dated 28-7-1987 be recalled and the case be remanded to the trial Court for deciding application afresh. Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami has fairly conceded that this is a fit case for remand and to decide the application afresh. I think the request is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The order dated 15-11-1987 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 28-7-1988 passed by the appellate Court are set aside. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, (south), Karachi on 6-7-1987. The learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to directed to the application under Order 9 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., afresh after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The parties are at liberty to file additional documents and/or affidavits in support of their respective versions. Learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to decide the application within two months from 6-7-1989. Civil Revision No.187/1988 is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
6. M.Y.H./A-615/K
7. Case remanded.