2002 PLP 907 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑O.II, R.2, O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2 & O. VII, R.11‑‑‑Suit for' recover of amount on basis of pronote‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Subsequent to filing suit for recovery of amount, plaintiff filed two other suits, for recovery of rent as well as mortgaged money‑‑‑In earlier suit for recovery of amount defendant moved application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. contending that plaintiff was barred under O.II, R.2, C.P.C. to file subsequent two suits‑‑‑Said application was rejected by Trial Court and Appellate Court‑‑‑In earlier suit for recovery of amount defendant had sought rejection of plaint in subsequent two suits which course could not be adopted‑‑‑Defendant through application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. could have only sought rejection of plaint in suit for recovery of amount and rejection of plaint in other two suits could not have been sought by invoking provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. without filing any such application in other two suits. Ch. Muhammad Zafar for Petitioner. Tariq Javed Sindhu for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st November, 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the very outset that respondent No.3 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.56,250 on the basis of a Pronote dated 6‑6‑1968 invoking summary jurisdiction of the Court under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Subsequent to this suit, two other suits were filed by respondent No.3 for recovery of rent as well as mortgaged money. It is contended that in the first suit i.e. filed under Order XXXVII to enforce the pronote, petitioner moved an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C contending that the respondent No.3 was barred under Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. to file the subsequent suits. This application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge and revision there against was also rejected by'‑learned Additional District Judge, hence the present Constitutional petition.

2. I have examined the record and heard the arguments in this case. Admittedly, a petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. was filed in the first suit for recovery of Rs.56,250 on the basis of pronote seeking rejection of the plaint of subsequent two suits. I wonder how such a course could be adopted by the petitioner. Through an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the petitioner could, have only sought rejection of plaint, if advisable, in the suit for recovery of Rs.56,

250. Rejection of plaints in other two suits could not have been sought by invoking the provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. without filing any such application in other two suits. In view of this, I need not to go into further questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as‑ to reasons for dismissal of her application. In fact, this application for rejection of plaint in other two suits, having not been filed in any of the said suits, was not maintainable. In view thereof this petition ' is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./A‑432/L Petition dismissed.