PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQUE and another

ORDER

1. ' Applicant Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Limited is defendant in Suit No, 973,/92, filed by the respondents with following prayers:- "To restrain the defendant, his agents, employees, officers or any other person acting on his behalf from sealing/locking, demolishing the shops Nos.A-397, A-465, A-364, A-449, A-381, A-516, A-1511, A-1136, A-883, A-208, A-1210, A-172, A-482, A-584, A-517, A-292, A-551, A1572, A-833, A-1256, A-618, A- 137, A-1472, A-1301, A-1492, A-550, A-585, A-1571, A-499, A-244, A-884, A-669, A-54, A-1300 and A- 1379, situated at Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Bin Qasim, Karachi, not to interfere in the business, not to disconnect water and gas supply and further restrain from disconnection of 3-phase electricity supply of plaintiff No,1 and prohibit him not to interfere in operation of floor machine of plaintiff No,1, situated at House No,A-397, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Bin Qasim, Karachi."

2. ' During the pendency of said suit applicant/defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint on the grounds, that the suit was not maintainable, that the suit was barred by Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., that the respondents had converted their residential premises into commercial, that the respondents had not observed terms and conditions of the lease deeds, that the shops have been constructed on residential plots and that the suit was barred by res judicata in view of the judgment of this Court in Const. Petition No, 1780/92. There was also an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., moved by the respondents for issue of interim injunction. Both the applications were heard by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East. Under the impugned order dated 1-12- 1993, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application of the applicant for rejection of the plaint and accepted the application of the respondents for issue of interim injunction. Present revision application is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the application under Order, 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., was dismissed, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant.

3. It is a settled position of law that for considering an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court will have to assume that all the A averments made in the plaint are true in form and in manner. In the instant case the respondent sought injunction against the applicant, restraining him from demolishing certain shops, which are said to have been raised at Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Bin Qasim, Karachi. Another prayer was that water, gas and electric supply should not be disconnected for the shops in question and that the flour machines fixed in House of respondent No,1 should not be interfered with.

4. ' Mr. M.G. Dastgir, learned counsel for the applicant has been heard at length. His main argument was that judgment of this Court in Const. Petition No, 1780/92, had decided the points which can arise in the suit and hence the plaint is required to be rejected.

5. ' I have gone through the judgment by a learned Division Bench of this Court delivered in Const.

6. Petition No, 1780/92, which was filed by 27 persons including the respondents. In said petition grievance of the respondents and others was that they were employees of applicant corporation and electricity connections to their houses were disconnected without any notice. It was during hearing of said Const. Petition that contentions were raised about commercialization of some areas in the residential area of Pakistan Steel Mill and about encroachments which according to the other side, had been removed. After hearing oral arguments from learned counsel appearing in the Constitutional petition, the learned Division Bench found that action of the Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation was based on valid reasons to separate residential from commercial area and to remove the encroachments. However, none of the points which would arise in the Suit No, 973/92 was heard and finally decided in the Constitutional petition. The decision given in the Constitutional petition was not based on any evidence. Consequently, I am of the view that the decision in Const.

7. Petition confined to separation of commercial from residential areas and about removal of encroachments would not operate as res judicata.

8. The other points raised in the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., even if accepted, would not result in rejection of the plaint. The plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance of Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. Or on the ground of the respondents having converted their residential plots into commercial plots or on the ground of non-fulfilment of the conditions of the leases.

9. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am- of the view that application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., was rightly dismissed and to that extent only, I concur with the judgment of the trial Court. This would not amount to approval of that part of the impugned judgment by which interim injunction has been issued in favour of the respondents, protecting their actions which are alleged to be illegal.

10. Since no revision was filed against issuance of interim injunction, hence I refrain from making any observation. Present revision application stands disposed of accordingly.