2018 Y L R 454
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahir Safdar and Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, JJ
RUKHSANA and 8 others ---Appellants
Versus
ASMATULLAH and 3 others ---Respondents
R.F.A. No.56 of 2011, decided on 29th May, 2017. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance
and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint ---Principles ---Appellant/plaintiff contended
that respondents, being legal heirs of original defendant, had actually moved Trial Court for
deletion of their names from the column of defendants but Trial Court, contrary to the prayer, rejected the plaint of appellant --- Respondents/defendants contended that Trial Court had
rightly accepted the petition of de fendants ---Validity ---Order VII, R. 11, C.P.C. made it clear
that plaint could be rejected, where it did not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed was under value and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation wit hin
time fixed by the court, failed to do so; where the relief claimed was properly valued, but the
plaint was written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, failed to do
so and where the suit appeared from the statement of the plaint to be barred by any law ---None
of the said defects, prima facie, appeared in the plaint leading same to be rejected ---Court
before rejecting plaint had als o to see that when the averments made therein if accepted in
mode and form, did not entitle plaintiff to a relief, it could reject the plaint---Provisions of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. could only be invoked, if there was no room for any other approach to the case and that no triable issue was made out in the case or suit was clearly hit by any mandatory
provision of law, justifying rejection of plaint ---Court was required to see mainly the averments
of the plaint avoiding deeper examination of the contents of the written statement---Claim made
in the plaint and denial of the same by answering defendants being serious in nature were required to provide opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims so that the controversies mig ht be determined after providing full opportunities to meet
the points ---Present case demanded thorough investigation so that the valuable rights of the
parties be determined finally ---Elementary principle of law was that the plaint could only be
rejected if all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs were barred under the law ---Even if one prayer
was maintainable, the plaint could not be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.--- Impugned
decree and order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Co urt with direction
to re -frame the issues properly, give proper opportunities to the parties to produce their
respective evidences and decide the case on merit ---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Habib Tahir for Appellants.
Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Respondent s Nos. 1 to 3.
Farooq Anwar for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---The appellants (plaintiffs) have called in question
the order and decree dated 20.6.2011 (the impugned order and decree) passed by the Se nior
Civil Judge -II, Quetta (the trial Court) whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11,
C.P.C. filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 was accepted and the suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) was rejected.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case ar e that the predecessor of the appellants (plaintiffs)
filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction before the trial Court with the following prayer: --
(a) Directing the defendant No.1 to receive the balance amount of Rs.5,94,000/ -
from th e plaintiff and to transfer and hand over the vacant possession of the
property bearing Khasra Nos.417. 418, 419 measuring 305 Sq:Ft: situated at
Mahal and Mouza Ward No.19 Tappa Urban Saddar, Tehsil and District Quetta.
(b) The defendant No. 2 be directed to hand over the vacant possession of suit
property to the plaintiff.
(c) The defendants Nos.1 and 2 be permanently restrained from alienating, transferring, exchange, mortgage and any kind of change in the nature of the property till the disposal of the suit.
(d) All cost of the suit.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff.
3. The defendants (respondents) contested the suit by filing the written statements and
denied the claim of the plaintiffs. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 8.6.2005: --
1. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in view of preliminary legal objections B, F, and H of the writte n statement raised by defendant No.1?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the transfer and vacant position (sic) of disputed property bearing Khasra Nos.417, 418, 419 measuring 305 Sq:Ft: situated at Mohal and Mouza Ward No.19 Tappa Urban Saddar, Tehs il and
District Quetta in lieu of payment of balance amount Rs.594,000/ - to the
defendant No.1?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?
4. During pendency of the case before the trial Court, on death of Haji Nazar Ali Khan
(defendan t No.1) his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants Nos.1 to 3 while during
pendency of this appeal Haji Naimatullah died and his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that prior to the impugned order and decree, the
trial Court by accepting the legal objections (Limitation and Res judicata) dismissed the suit vide order dated 10.10.2005. Being aggrieved of the said order, the predecessor of the appellants/ plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No.39/2005 before this Court, which was accepted vide order
dated 28.4.2010 and the case was remanded to the trial Court in the following terms:
"In view of above stated facts and circumstances, we feel that the impugned order and decree dated 10.10.2005 passed by Senior Civil Judge -II, Quetta is patently illegal and
unlawful, resultantly, same is set -aside by accepting the appeal and case is remanded
back to the trial Court to proceed the same in accordance with law after providing full opportunity to the parties."
6. After rem and when the suit was subjudice in the trial Court, the respondents Nos.1 to 3
(defendants Nos.1 to 3) filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was contested by the appellants (plaintiffs) by filing rejoinder. The trial Court, after hea ring the
parties on the said application, once again rejected the plaint vide impugned order and decree dated 20.6.2011, hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) contended that the respondents Nos.1 to
3 filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. with the prayer that their names may be
deleted from the column of the defendants, but the trial Court contrary to the prayer, rejected the plaint; that the valuable rights of the appellants are involved in the matter, as such, the trial Court was required to decide the matter on merit; that the trial Court by misinterpreting the Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. rejected the plaint; Lastly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and remand of the case to trial Court for deciding the same on merits.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and defended the
impugned order.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and the
provisions laid under Rule 11 of Order VII , C.P.C., which reads as under: --
"11.Rejection of plaint. ---The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: --
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) Where the relief claimed is under -valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by
the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to
do so;
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply
the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law,
10. A plain reading of the above Rule abundantly makes it clear that a plaint can be rej ected,
where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the relief claimed is prop erly valued, but the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the suit appears from the statemen t in the plaint to be barred by any law. We have gone through the
plaint in detail and have come to safe conclusion that none of the above defects, prima facie, appear in the plaint leading same to be rejected.
11. Before rejecting a plaint the Court has also to see that when the averment made therein
if accepted in mode and form, do not entitle plaintiff to a relief, it can reject the plaint. Provisions of Rule 11, Order VII, C.P.C. can only be invoked, if there is no room for any other approach to the cas e and that no triable issue is made out in the case or suit is clearly hit by any
mandatory provision of law, justifying rejection of the plaint. While deciding the application like under consideration, the Courts are required to see mainly the averments of the plaint
avoiding deeper examination of the contents of the written statement.
12. The claim made in the plaint and denial of the same by answering defendants being
serious in nature are required to provide opportunity to the parties to produce evidenc e in
support of their respective claims so that the controversies may be determined after providing full opportunities to the parties to meet the points. The instant case, in our opinion, demands thorough investigation, so that the precious rights of the parties be determined finally. Furthermore, it is an elementary principle of law that the plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal, plaint can only be rejected if all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are barred under the law. Even if one prayer is maintai nable, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11,
C.P.C.
13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order and decree
dated 20.6.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge -II, Quetta are hereby set -aside and the matter
is remanded back to the trial Court with direction to re -frame the issues properly, give proper
opportunities to the parties to produce their respective evidence and decide the case preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. There is no order as to cost.
MQ/87/Bal. Appeal allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.