ORDER  SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

R. A. No. 154 / 2009

__________________________________________________________________

Date                     Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order o CMA No. 3797/2009

2. For hearing of main case.

28.09.2016.

`

Mr. Muhammad Vawda, advocate for the applicant.

          Mr. Tufail Ahmed, Assistant Director, Law of                                RespondentNo. 1.

Mr. Muhammad Aqil Zaidi, advocate for Respondent

No. 2

The applicant is a retired employee of Pakistan Post Office. He was put in possession of the quarter in dispute by Pakistan Post Office, his employer. In fact he was dismissed from the service and major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. Instead of vacating the quarter on retirement hefiled Suit No. 1222/2005 for retaining the possession of the quarter as long as he can in the name of this litigation. His application under Order XXXI Rule 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed and even plaint was rejected by trial Court by order dated 28.10.2006. He preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 11.07.2009 and now he is in this Court for last seven years.

The order of dismissal of appeal is comprehensive and appears to be justified, however, on the last date of hearing,the applicant was directed to call the counsel who represented him in appellate Court to verify the contents of the affidavit filed by him in support of an application for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. Today he informs that his counsel has refused to turn up, which clearly indicates that the contents of the affidavit were false. The applicant has engaged four different counselfor representing him in last seven years to lingeron the same on account of his lawyers.  Since he was an employee, rent of the quarter in question was deducted from his salary as longs as he was in service and after dismissal from service, he is not entitled to retain the quarter any more since he is not receiving any financial benefit from his employer. Since 25.05.2001, when the applicant was compulsorily retired from service, he has not paid a single penny towards house-rent/occupancy value. Be that as it may, subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/= this Revision Application is allowed and case is remanded to the appellate Court for a fresh decision on Appeal No. 231/2006. The cost will be paid to Respondent No. 1 through the Nazir of District Judge, East Karachi on or before 20.10.2016 when this case shall be taken up by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, East Karachi. If the cost is not paid within stipulated time this Revision shall deem to have been dismissed and the impugned order of the Appellate Court shall be maintained.

However, if cost is paid the appeal should be heard and decided on merits within 30 days from 20.10.2016. The IV-Additional Sessions Judge, East Karachi should submit a report of compliance of order through MIT-II for perusal of this Court in chamber.

J U D G E

ZahidBaig