Law:

Section:

C.M.A. No.7839/89 under Order K rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C moved on behalf of plaintiff seeks the restoration of this suit dismissed on 15-11-1989 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Plaintiffs have also challenged the dismissal order in High Court Appeal No.269/89, in case the same is treated to be under rule 3 of Order XVII, C.P.C. The first point, therefore, to be considered here is as to whether the dismissal order, was under rule 2 or rule 3 of Order XVII, for, if it is found to be under the latter the present application would not be maintainable. The said order reads as follows:

"The plaintiffs and their counsel have been called absent. The matter was called earlier in the morning but even then none was present on their behalf. Syed Inayat Ali and Mr. Abid Zuberi holding brief for Mr. Khalid M. Ishaq are present on behalf of the defendant No.3. They deny the claim of plaintiffs and claim. costs. The suit under the circumstances is dismissed with costs. C.MA No.6251/89 has. -become infructuous and the game is also dismissed. The ad interim injunction earlier granted in favour of the plaintiffs also stands discharged."