2004 PLP 353 (YLR)

Date of hearing: 4th August, 2003. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 23-4-2003 passed by learned District Judge, Karachi South,, who by the aforesaid order, set aside the order dated 15-8-2002, passed by IVth Civil Judge, Karachi South whereby the plaint filed by respondent No.1 was, rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. The brief facts of this case are that plaintiff/respondent No. l (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) filed a suit for and mandatory injunction to the Court of IVth Civil Judge, Karachi South being Suit No.145 of 2000. The prayer clause of which reads as under:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants Nos.1 to 3, (a) for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the membership of Pakistan Sport Writers Press Association (AIPS), (b) mandatory injunction directing to defendants Nos. l to 3, to admit and accept and to grant membership of Pakistan Sport Writers Federation (PSWF) and International Sports Press Association (AIPS), (c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 and all the members of defendant No.1 to contest the election of AIPS permanently till the elections are held within defendant No. 1, with the participation of the plaintiff, (d) mandatory injunction against the defendant No.4, directing them to withdraw the recognition of the defendant No.1 till the fair, free, democrat and impartial election are held with the participation of the plaintiff to enable Pakistan to contest the election successfully of the AIPS of the AIPS Hockey Commission. " After service, the defendants/ applicants (hereinafter referred to as applicants) instead of filing written statement filed application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff was not full time Sports Journalist. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the plaint- under Order 7, rule 11, C. P. C. vide order dated 15-8-2002. The said order was challenged by the respondent No. l which was set aside by the learned District Judge, Karachi South on 23-4-2003. The said appellate order has been challenged through this civil revision. I have heard Mr. Ch. Abdul Rashid learned counsel for applicants and Messrs Dr. Farogh Naseem learned counsel for respondent No.

1. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that the respondent No.1 was not the full time journalist, therefore, he is not entitled for membership of Pakistan Sports Writers Federation (PSWF). He emphasized that respondent No. l did not produce any -document alongwith plaint to substantiate the averments of his plaint for being as full time journalist. It is submitted that subsequently when application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. was filed, he produced two certificates alongwith his objections which cannot be taken into consideration for setting aside the order of trial Court passed on application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. It is argued that he cannot be the member of Federation as he failed to prove himself to be full time Sports Journalist. The contents of plaint were- not substantiated by any document. The provisions of Order 7, role 11, C.P.C. have been fully attracted and plaint was rightly rejected by the trial Court. The order of trial Court was sound and well reasoned which had unnecessarily been reversed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Farogh Naseem learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that lie is full time Journalist. He has referred to several documents including certificates by Pakistan Olympic Association, Newspaper cuttings, British Broadcasting Corporation Certificate dated 16-7-1994. He submits that all these documents need evidence and the Appellate Court has passed a legal and proper order for proceedings with the suit. He argued that the trial Court failed to examine and appreciate the averments of plaint, as for the purpose of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C., the Court has only to examine the plaint and its accompaniments. The trial Court has crossed the limits of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent should not suffer for technicalities but he should be given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. He was not required to place all evidence and documents which he wanted to bring it on record through evidence. The Court can take notice of changed situation and subsequent plea as raised by other side for determining controversy between the parties and reach at a right conclusion of case. Reliance is placed upon the case of Mst. Begum Jan alias Maim Jan v. Muhammad Latif Khan and 4 others 1999 MLD 1236 and Syed Ali Asghar and 3 others v. Creators (Builders) and 3 others 2001 SCMR

279. The record shows that the respondent No. l has specifically stated in his plaint that he is journalist and the contents thereof clearly indicate that the respondent is journalist and remained affiliated with several news agencies, International Sports. He was also nominated to International Hockey Federation (FIH) as Member, Communications Committee by the P.H.F. The applicants Nos.1, 2, 3 and respondent No.4 instead of filing written statements filed an application under Order 7, rule, 11, C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint. In reply to that application, the respondent No.1 filed certain documents, which cannot be rejected straightaway. They are to be accepted or rejected after some evidence is adduced by the parties. The arguments to the effect that the said documents should have been produced alongwith plaint and their subsequent production has no evidentiary value, has no force, as the respondent No.1 produced the said documents, when his status was denied by the defendants. Also, he was not supposed to place all his documents which he wanted to bring it through evidence. The Appellate Court has very rightly held that several documents have been produced by .the respondent No.1, which require evidence. For rejection of plaint, the contents of plaint are only to be taken into consideration. The- order of Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is well reasoned and justified which needs no interference. This revision application has no merit and is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. S.A.K./P-79/K Revision dismissed.