2023 PLP 1460 (MLD)

CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J.

The captioned appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree recorded by learned Additional District Judge Pattikah/Naseerabad dated 28.09.2019, whereby judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Pattikah/Naseerabad dated 12.02.2019, has been maintained. Precise facts of the case are, appellant herein filed a suit for declaration cum perpetual injunction against respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Pattikah/Naseerabad on 12.12.2017, wherein it was averred that land comprising survey Nos. 24 and 32 renumbered as 23 measuring 10 kanal is in sole ownership of plaintiff. It was contended that name of Mst. Fazal Noor predecessor of defendants was entered in the revenue record as owner of half of the suit land on the ground that in the suit filed for possession: on the basis of right of prior purchase, her name was entered being sharer in the khewat which was decreed accordingly while the whole consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff and he spent a huge amount on litigation spreading over fifty years, hence he is owner of the suit land and rights of defendants have spoiled, thus defendants may be prohibited from claiming ownership or any other right in the suit land. Defendants appeared before the Court below and filed application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule XI, C.P.C. The other side filed objections. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties on the application, rejected the suit for want of cause of action vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019. Appeal filed before Additional District Judge Pattikah against judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019 also met the same fate vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 28.09.2019, hence the captioned second appeal. The learned counsel for the parities have filed written arguments which are made part of the file hence need not to be reiterated for the sake of brevity. I have pondered the written arguments presented on behalf of the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record of case with utmost care and caution. A perusal of record reveals that plaintiff in para two of his plaint admitted that lard in question was in the ownership of Noor Hussain Shah who sold the same to Ghulam Hassan, Ghulam Muhammad and Ismail through a sale deed. The sale deed was pre-empted by plaintiff and Mst. Fazal Noor, predecessor of defendants. The suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties and both plaintiff and Fazal Noor were declared to 132 entitled to get 5 kanal each, hence plaintiff cannot claim as being a sole owner of 10 kanal land which was pre-empted by plaintiff as well as Mst. Fazal Noor, thus there exist zero probability that plaintiff can get a required decree because if claim of plaintiff that he has paid the whole consideration amount and expended huge money during litigation for the same land shall be deemed to be correct even then plaintiff cannot be declared owner of land and defendants who are lawful owners of land in view of decree dated 14.10.1969 cannot be prohibited to enjoy the fruits of their land, therefore, both the Courts below have accurately rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The relevant facts need to be looked into for deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are the averments in the plaint, however, besides averments made in the plaint other material available on record which on its own strength is legally sufficient to completely refute the claim of plaintiff can also be pondered into for the purpose of rejection of the plaint. Reliance may be placed on 2002 SCMR

338. Similarly if a party who approaches the Court, with malice intention by concealing material facts which if brought before the Court, the plaintiff would have been out of Court for having no cause of action and also in a situation that defendants brought any such fact in the notice of the Court the same can also be judiciously mused while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. because a plaintiff should not be allowed to drag the other party into a frivolous and non-sensical litigation. My this view lends support from 1991 MLD 2295 High Court AJK. The basic objective, aim and design of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at its inception so that no further time is allowed to be wasted over what is bound to collapse as paving no legs to stand. A suit may be specifically barred by law and in such an event, the matter would come under the express terms of clause (d) of rule 11, of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, but even in a case where a suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has got an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint at any stage of trial and in such a situation formalities should be avoided to reject it, thus, Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is not exhaustive. Reliance may be placed on PLD 1997 AJK

11. The Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction can nip the frivolous litigation in the bud. It is the duty of the Court to thoroughly examine the plaint at the very inception so that the parties could be saved from the agony of frivolous litigation in order to save the precious time of the court because a Court should not behave like a mute observer that a party can capture the whose system of justice for an indefinite time in order to rescue the prevailing judicial system which is already at the prime of criticism. My this view is fortified by a judgment of Lahore High Court reported as 1994 CLC 1248. The crux and epitome of the above discussion is, the Ratio decidendi recorded by both the Courts below is just in consonance and nexus with the spirit of the relevant law which hardly requires any indulgence by this Court, hence, finding no essence the instant appeal is hereby send away. ADN/4/HC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.