P L D 2002 Karachi 408 (PLP)
SHAHEEM NASIR KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. ASMAT ARA and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2002 Karachi 408 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | S.A. Rabbani, J |
| Parties | SHAHEEM NASIR KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. ASMAT ARA and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Karachi 408 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Karachi 408 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: S.A. Rabbani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Karachi 408 (PLP) (SHAHEEM NASIR KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. ASMAT ARA and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Khalid Ali for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VII, R.11‑‑‑Plaint, rejection of‑‑‑Cause of action‑‑‑Terms "Plaintiff having no cause of action" and "plaint disclosing no cause of action" distinction‑‑‑Plaint, in the present case, mentioned that there was a dispute between the parties about ownership of suit land‑‑‑Defendant filed application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the application‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff having no cause of action was something different from the plaint disclosing no cause of action‑‑‑Plaint having cause of action or not could only be determined on the basis of evidence‑‑‑Plaint could be rejected under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. only if the same did not disclose a cause of action‑‑‑Trial Court had rightly declined to reject the plaint and there was no illegality or material irregularity in the order‑‑‑Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Ajeebullah for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Khalid Ali for Respondents Nos. l and
2. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2002. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No.28 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Thatta against the present applicant and other respondents for declaration and injunction. In that suit, the present applicant tiled an application for rejection of plaint. The Senior Civil Judge, Thatta declined to reject the plaint and dismissed the application of the present applicant by his order dated 21‑4‑1997. Against this order the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit was time- barred and it was also barred under the law because previously two suits were filed on the same cause of action. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. l and 2 submitted that the suit was filed after their Constitutional petition was disposed of, in which it was observed that the remedy may be sought before the Civil Court. He submitted that the defence pleas are not to be considered for rejection of plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. He submitted that the earlier suits were not similar. The applicant has filed copy of his application tiled before the Civil Court for rejection of plaint. Through this application, the applicant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law of limitation the plaintiffs had no cause of action and it was also barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and section 11, C.P.C. The plaint mentions that there was a dispute between the parties about ownership of the agriculture land mentioned in the plaint and there was litigation in. this regard. In these circumstances, the respondents Nos. l and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their ownership and a consequent injunction. According to the averments of plaint, there was a continuing cause of action. The suit was not apparently barred by limitation or under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act in the circumstances. However, the applicant could raise these pleas be determined on the bask of evidence. The 'applicant asserted that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. Plaintiffs having no cause of action is something different from the plaint disclosing no cause of action. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action or not can only be determined on the basis of evidence. It could be rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. only in case disclose a cause of action. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how the earlier suits were between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The facts on record show that the Senior Civil Judge was justified in declining to reject the plaint. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed with costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑199/K Revision dismissed.