2014 PLP 2244 (YLR)

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.

This revision petition under section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-5-2009, whereby Additional District Judge, Ghazi Camp Court Haripur, on acceptance of appeal of respondents' remanded the case back fair trial to the Court Civil Judge-I, Haripur.

2. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession regarding property fully described in the heading of plaint against the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of res judicata and limitation. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties vide order dated 27-3-2008 on acceptance of application of petitioners rejected the plaint of respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal and learned appellate court after hearing the parties accepted the same, set aside the order of trial Court and remanded the case back for decision on merits in accordance with law, hence, the instant revision petition.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Admittedly, the suit is at the initial stage and petitioners have filed their joint written statement. A perusal of contents of instant plaint would reveal that the pleas raised in it would require recording of pro and contra evidence for just and proper decision of the suit and on preparation of every fresh jamabandi give a fresh cause of action. The plaint itself discloses a cause of action and the question of limitation is a ixed question of law and facts requiring evidence. Further, in the case of Managing Director Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 724) it was held as under:-- (k) Limitation - Administration of Justice -- Decision of the cases on merits always to be _encouraged instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reasons including on limitation (p.769).".

5. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are attracted to the following cases:--

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.

6. A look of these provisions contemplates a mechanism for rejection of plaint on grounds mentioned therein and mischief of limitation is not found mentioned in it. No doubt, it can be a valid ground for dismissal of suit qua evidence recorded in the trial by the parties but at pre-trial stage rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation would not come within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Even otherwise, these provisions can only be attracted, when on the face of it, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action if taken as correct or if it is barred by law. Needless to mention that suit filed allegedly after prescribed period of limitation would not empower the court to reject the same rather it has to be dismissed on this score along with other ground, if any, after recording evidence and there is no provision in the Limitation Act or any other law to dismiss the suit prima facie time barred and being mixed question of law and fact has to be proved through for and against evidence.

7. The law also favours decision of cases on merits and not on the basis of mere technicalities and in these circumstances the learned appellate court rightly remanded the case for decision afresh after recording pro and contra evidence in accordance with law. No case for interference has been made out.

8. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. AG/340/P Revision dismissed.