P L D 2006 Lahore 727 (PLP)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

A mutation of Gift No.2307 dated 14-2-2004, by means of which respondent No.1 alienated the property in favour of respondent No.2, his son, was sought to be assailed through a declaratory suit instituted before the trial Court. In that an application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the respondents, which application has been accepted by the Courts below, as a result the present petition has been filed .before this Court.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that respondent No.1 was under the influence of respondent No.2, who made a gift in favour of the later under such influence and duress and that the property had at one time been given to the petitioner as well which was no more available for further disposition in favour of respondent No.2. The contention has been considered in the light of the material brought on record. The admitted position is that Khair Muhammad/respondent No.1 is father of the petitioner as also of respondent No.2. Through the abovementioned mutation he transferred the suit property in favour of respondent No.2, his other son. It was this mutation and disposition of the property, which was sought to be assailed before the trial Court. The application which was made by the respondents jointly for rejection of the plaint was taken up by the trial Court who proceeded even to record the better statement of respondent No. 1 on 13-12-2005. It was stated by him on oath that he had transferred the property in favour of respondent No.2 of his free-will and consent and he was possessed of full senses and was not acting under the influence of respondent No.2. An opportunity to cross-examine him was afforded to the petitioner but no cross-examination was conducted. In such view of the matter when a Muslim owner of the property is vested with all rights to dispose of his property, during his lifetime the disposition made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 cannot in any way be termed either illegal or contrary to law. Indeed the petitioner had no right or locus standi to object to the same. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner should have been afforded opportunity of producing evidence in the circumstances is untenable inasmuch as in the light of the admission made by respondent No.1 there was no use of keeping such a suit pending. It may be observed that the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are invokable to such suits for rejection of plaints at the initial stage so that the parties are relieved from pursuing vexatious litigation. If on meaningful reading of the plaint and the material brought on record by the plaintiff, the Court finds the suit as meritless and vexatious, it must be nipped in the bud at the initial, stage. The trial of such a suit would have merely prolonged an unnecessary and frivolous litigation. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below in rejecting the plaint in the circumstances cannot be regarded either illegal or without jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed accordingly. S.M.B./D-7/L Petition dismissed.