1992 PLP 1173 (CLC)

2., The plaintiff‑petitioner had sought a declaration to the effect that the proceedings regarding the execution of a warrant of possession as entered in `Roznamcha Waqiati' No.491 dated 11‑7‑1989, in respect of the suit land measuring 17 Kanals 1 Marla situated in the area of village Ahmadnagar, Tehsil Chiniot, were collusive, fictitious, against law and liable to be set aside. He also requested for a permanent injunction, seeking to restrain his opponent from interfering in his possession of the suit land.

3. His claim to that effect was based on insufficiently stated allegations in the plaint to the effect that he was occupying the land as tenant‑at‑will under. the landlord ship of Mst. Hashmat Bibi, daughter of Abdul Ghafoor, but the defendant‑respondent, on the basis of a so‑called warrant of possession in collusion with the revenue staff, had fictitiously obtained possession of the suit land from him vide aforesaid report of `Roaznamcha Waqiati' and he was entitled to the declaration prayed for, with consequential relief of perpetual injunction. He did not explain as which Court or authority had issued the warrant of possession and in what sort of proceedings. Alongwith the plaint he moved an application for temporary injunction, seeking to '4kstrain his opponent from interfering in his possession of the disputed land till the decision of his suit.

4. The suit as well as the application both were contested by the defendant‑respondent. Besides raising certain legal objections, including the lack of jurisdiction of the Court, she, in her pleadings, averred that during the course of consolidation proceedings in the village she got her share of the land separated from that of the plaintiff‑petitioner as the latter being in possession of the land was not allowing her to enjoy her share of produce and pursuant to the decision of the Consolidation Authorities she took possession of the disputed property in the execution of warrant of possession. According to her, the plaintiff‑petitioner duly contested the matter before the Consolidation Authorities right up to the level of Board of Revenue but remained '^ unsuccessful throughout and ultimately took recourse to the Civil Courts.

5. The learned Civil Judge, while disposing of the stay application of the plaintiff‑petitioner, also rejected the plaint vide his order, dated 29‑1‑1990, inter alia, on the ground that the parties had litigated in the consolidation forums right up to the highest level and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, particularly when he wanted to stay over the land as a tenant, was barred. In his opinion, there was also lack of cause of action and locus standi in favour of the plaintiff‑petitioner. `

6. Aggrieved by these findings, the plaintiff‑petitioner went up in appeal but there too he remained unsuccessful and has now come up to this Court for invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

7. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff‑petitioner that he continues to be in possession of the disputed property even now because on the execution of warrant of possession issued by the Revenue/Consolidation Authorities, fictitious report was made by the revenue staff. According to the learned counsel, since the proceedings taken by the Consolidation Authorities were illegal, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. He submits that the learned trial Judge, while disposing of the application of the plaintiff‑petitioner for the issuance of temporary injunction, could not proceed to reject the plaint and to this extent he acted in an unlawful manner.

8. Most of the case‑law on the subject is in favour of the proposition that a Court, while dealing with such matters, should not reject the plaint or dismiss the suit which should be disposed of in normal course after framing the issues in view of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence. However, the opposite view is that in an extraordinary situation the Court can reject the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. because a frivolous lis needs to be buried as soon as possible.

9. Of late, it has been noticed with dismay that a tendency is gaining ground amongst the obstinate litigants and their lawyers, particularly in property suits where they are in possession, to resort to frivolous litigation with a view to prolong it to the detriment of their opponents. This tendency is, unfortunately, rapidly eroding the confidence of general public in the efficacy of the judicial system and the Courts have to devise ways and means to check. this tendency in order to protect those litigants who have genuine grievances. To achieve that object, one of the methods is to attentively look at the plaints at the initial stage in appropriate cases as to whether or not they attract the application of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. and if the facts of the case justify the application of such provisions, the same must be applied for the rejection of the plaints, irrespective of the fact: whether that stage is the disposal of the application for temporary injunction or it is somewhat earlier, which can be the institution of the suit, or at some time later, which can be the stage of framing of issues.

10. The case in hand appears to be one of those cases which should have attracted the provisions of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. as the plaintiff petitioner, as per his own showing in the plaint, was a tenant of the disputed property and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of a tenant of agricultural land. Further, he, in the plaint gave no indication about previous litigation between the parties in the consolidation forums and purposely suppressed these facts with a view to mislead the Court about the real controversy involved and it was only the defendant‑respondent, who, after her appearance disclosed in her pleadings the real background of the dispute between the parties.

11. In view of the above, there is no substance in the revision and the same is dismissed in limine. AA./L‑8/L Revision dismissed.