2009 PLP 786 (YLR)

SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.

Defendant No.3 has moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on 14-5-2003 on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.3. It is further stated that the cause of action for filing of the suit is restricted only against defendants Nos.1 and

2. It is mentioned that the defendant No.3 has got no privity of contract with defendants Nos.1 and 2 nor such privity of contract has been alleged by the plaintiff against defendant No.3 hence, the defendant No.3 cannot be impleaded in the instant suit. In para. 4, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the defendant No.3 is a banking company with whom the plaintiff established various letters of credit while defendant No.4 is an insurance company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan being controlled by the same group which controls and manages defendant No.3. In para. 4 of the written statement filed by defendant No.4 it has been admitted that the plaintiff had established three letters of credits at the relevant time as mentioned in Para.8 of the plaint. However, it has been stated that the defendants Nos.3 and 4 are two different independent entities carrying on their respective business in two different spheres of activities. In prayer clause (a) the plaintiff has sought the relief as under:-- "(a) On the basis of paragraph 18 above, a decree against defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs.8,000,000 with mark up at the rate of 16% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution till realization. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the averments made in the plaint which are only to be considered for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that a plaint can only be rejected when from the perusal of contents of plaint, it does not disclose proper and legal cause of action; and when the same is barred by any law and thirdly when the same has been under-valued and insufficiently stamped. Above grounds mentioned in this application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, prima facie, require evidence so that the plaintiff should discharge its burden of proof regarding its claim and to substantiate the same by way of documentary evidence as well. The controversy between the parties in suit requires proper appraisal of the evidence to be led by the parties. As regards legal pleas taken in the matter, the same are also part and parcel of the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3. These legal objections and pleas can be reflected in the form of the issues for proper adjudication of the matter after the parties are afforded proper opportunity to lead their evidence. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, I do not find it just, proper and legal to summarily reject the plant of the suit filed for recovery of money losses and damages. To my mind, application 'under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. does not bear merits at all and as such the same is dismissed. However, in A the given circumstances, no order is made as to costs. H.B.T./A-23/K Application dismissed.