P L D 2006 Lahore 74 (PLP)
Raja AMEER HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Minorities, Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Islamabad and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 74 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Raja AMEER HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Minorities, Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Islamabad and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 74 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 74 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Lahore 74 (PLP) (Raja AMEER HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Minorities, Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Islamabad and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Maqbool Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- Shaukat Umar Pirzada for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is a distinction between the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit and the bar of law about the institution of the suit. According to him, the plaint could only be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. if it is barred by law and when the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Court has been raised, it is the duty of the Court to frame an issue and to necessarily record the evidence, and thereafter to decide the matter. But in the present case, this procedure has not been followed.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R.11(d)
Scope
Regarding rejection of plaint, the provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. is not exhaustive
Plaint can be rejected under O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C., when it is barred under any law e.g. bar of res judicata or limitation
Besides the same, the Court has power to dismiss the suit in the nature of rejecting the plaint, where there is a clear ousting of jurisdiction of civil Court.
S. 42
Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), Ss.8 & 14
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that suit property was not an evacuee trust property
Application of Authorities for rejecting the plaint was dismissed by Trial Court but Appellate Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, rejected the plaint for the reason that the suit was barred under law
Plea raised by plaintiff was that Trial Court should have decided the application after recording of evidence
In case of dispute with regard to a property being an evacuee trust property or not, it was the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Properties Board, who had the exclusive jurisdiction under S.8 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, to decide the issue and his decision would be final
Civil Courts, under S.14 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, could not take cognizance of such matter
Plaintiff, instead of approaching civil Courts, should have approached the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Board, by raising the question about status of property
Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and revisional Court had rightly rejected the plaint, which order was akin to dismissal of suit
Matter was rightly decided by Trial Court without framing. of requisite issues and enabling the parties to lead evidence
Such procedure or course could be dispensed with, where ouster of jurisdiction was eminent on the basis of clear provisions of law
High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Court
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner filed a suit for the declaration, against the respondents, claiming that the property in dispute is not an evacuee trust property, rather is a Shamlatdeh; the respondent/Board through its Secretary moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint, which application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13-7-2004; the respondent/Board preferred a revision, which has been accepted and the plaint has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is a distinction between the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit and the bar of law about the institution of the suit. According to him, the plaint could only be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. if it is barred by law and when the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Court has been raised, it is the duty of the Court to frame an issue and to necessarily record the evidence, and thereafter to decide the matter. But in the present case, this procedure has not been followed.
3. Heard. In fact, Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. is not an exhaustive regarding the rejection of the plaints. Obviously according to the subsection (d) of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the plaint could be rejected, when the suit is barred under any law e.g. bar of res judicata or A limitation, etc. However, besides the above, the Court has the power to dismiss the suit in the nature of rejecting the plaint, where there is a clear law ousting the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In this case, according to section 8 read with 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), if a question arises, whether any property is evacuee trust property or not, it is the Chairman of the Board, who shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue and his decision should be the final. As per section 14 of Act XIII of B 1975, the civil Courts cannot take the cognizance of such matter, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner instead of approaching the civil Court, should have approached the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board, by raising the question about the status of the property. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in this behalf and the learned revisional Court has rightly rejected the plaint of the petitioner, which order is akin to the dismissal of the suit. Moreover, I am not impressed with the argument that the Court could only decide the matter after framing of the requisite issues and enabling the parties to lead evidence. Suffice it to say that such procure or course can be dispensed with, where the ouster of jurisdiction, as in the present case, is eminent on the basis of clear provisions of law. In the light of above, this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. M.H./A-637/L Petition dismissed.