2002 PLP 1366 (MLD)

The plaintiff (hereinafter called the respondent) instituted a suit seeking possession of the suit land (detailed in the plaint) by exercising his alleged right of pre‑emption against defendant/vendee (hereinafter called the petitioner) who moved an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. on 12‑6‑1999 and the learned trial Court after getting the reply allowed the application and rejected the plaint filed. by respondent vide his order, dated 27‑7‑1999. However, on appeal preferred by the respondent against the same the learned Additional District Judge, Liaqatpur set aside the order of the learned trial Court vide his order, dated 26‑1‑2000.

2. Through the instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 26‑1‑2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Liaqatpur.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal of respondent against the order of the learned trial Court has proceeded on wrong premises of law and facts. He referred to para.5 of the plaint to contend that suit of respondent was patently time‑barred, thus the learned trial Judge validly rejected the plaint. Adds that limitation in the instant case will start from the date when the factum of transfer was incorporated in Ruppat Roznamch Waqiati.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently supported the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge by submitting that the same had been passed strictly in accordance with law and facts and the limitation in the instant case would start from the date of knowledge of the mutation attestation of which had been purposely kept concealed and the respondent had categorically taken a specific plea of fraud in this regard thus suit could not be prima facie held to be barred by time. Reliance had been placed on PLD 1997 SC 366, 1994 SCMR 826, 1997 CLC 1260.

5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and gone through the judgments cited at the bar.

6. It is well‑settled that rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. can be invoked to reject the plaint: (a) If it does not disclose cause of action: (b) Where the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation within a period given by the Court: (c) Where the plaint is written upon paper in sufficiently stamped and the plaintiff failed to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time given by the Court; and (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

7. On a question put by this Court the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the instant case would fall in the last category as the suit was barred by law of limitation. I am afraid this contention is devoid of any force as Court has to confine itself to the averments made in the plaint in order to attract the provision of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. A careful perusal of the plaint of respondent shows that the said provision cannot be made applicable to the instant case. The respondent has given details to show that his suit was well within the period of limitation. Even otherwise, question of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts requires evidence which can only be done after framing of issue on this point.

8. I am convinced that learned Additional District Judge has passed the impugned judgment after considering the matter in its true perspective and committed no material irregularity and illegality which may warrant indulgence of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

9. For what has been stated above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./S‑426/L Petition dismissed.