Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASIF ANWAR AND ANOTHER VS Respondent: MESSRS NISHIBE KAIKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Naimuddin Ahmed, Ali Madad Shah Title:ASIF ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NISHIBE KAIKE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Case No.:High Court Appeal No, 56 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications 430 and 431 of 1986 Date of Judgment:1986-04-07 Reported As: PLD 1986 Karachi 446 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment ORDER ' NAIMUDDIN, C. J.-This is an appeal under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, from the order, dated 30-1.1986, passed in Suit No, 234 of 1984, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby inter alia amongst others application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., for impleading appellant No, 1 as a party to the suit and another application under Order XIX, rules 1 and 2. C. P. C., for an injunction restraining appellant 1 from selling Nishibi Novel Brand Taxi-Meters, were allowed and accordingly, appellant No, 1 was joined as a party to the suit and the injunction as prayed was issued. 2. We asked Mr. Mansoorul Arfin, learned counsel for the appellant how one appeal against orders passed on distinct and separate applications was maintainable and gave him option to maintain the appeal against one of the orders. He stated that he would press the appeal against both the orders. In our view, the appellants cannot do so as they should have filed two separate appeals against the two distinct orders and even if they had paid court-fee as payable on two separate appeals and had applied for leave to file a joint appeal against both the orders, we might not have been technical. If we entertain this appeal in its present form it would cause loss of revenue to the State, and, therefore, we allowed him option to proceed against one of the two orders passed on two distinct and separate applications containing altogether different prayers but he declined to exercise the option. We, therefore, have no alternative but to dismiss this, appeal and accordingly dismiss it.
---
## Page 2
3. We would, however, observe that it will be open to the appellants to file separate appeals according to law, if they so choose.