Law:

Section:

This is a revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, D.I. Khan, dated 24-9-1983 whereby the order and decree dated 14-3-1982 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan, was affirmed and suit filed by Doctor Inayatullah Khan plaintiff-respondent herein, against the Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others for declaration and perpetual -injunction had been decreed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.   Shorne of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff-respondent as set up in the plaint filed on 22-4-1978 is that notwithstanding his compulsory retirement under Martial Law Regulation No.114 of 1972, he was entitled to promotion and consequential benefits in arrears of pay and enhanced pension with effect from 25-12-1965 till the date of his retirement in preference to Doctor Najmuddin and Doctor Iftikhar-ul-Islam, defendants 4 and 5.   Defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly while defendant No.4 separately contested the suit. In their joint written statement submitted by them, it was pleaded that the Civil Court was devoid of jurisdiction to entertain this suit; that the plaintiff had no locus standi; and that the suit was not maintainable in the form it has been filed. On merits, the claim of the plaintiff to his seniority and consequential benefits and recovery of arrears of pay and enhanced pension was denied. The learned trial Court, in view of the respective pleadings of the parties, raised the following issues for trial:-   Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action or any locus standi?   Whether the suit is not competent in its present form? .   Whether this Court as Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and perpetual injunction prayed for ?   Relief.   4. The plaintiff in order to prove his claim relied on a heap of record which he had placed on the file. Perusal of the order sheet would reveal that the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded on 5-9-1984 and the case was posted for evidence of the defendants to 2-10-1984. Since the evidence was not in attendance, therefore,…