2026 PLP 1357 (YLR)

Faisal Zaman Khan, J.

Through this Regular First Appeal order and decree dated 03.07.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore has been assailed, by virtue of which while accepting an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the respondents a suit for recovery filed by the appellant against the respondents has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a suit for recovery of Rs.248,400,000/- along with mark up, liquidated damages till realization and costs was filed by the appellant against the respondents. Written statement was filed by the respondents denying the claim of the appellant, whereafter, an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the respondents which was allowed through the impugned order. and decree and the suit was dismissed, therefore, this appeal.

3. Learned counsels for the appellant submit that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and without recording of evidence the said question could not be determined, therefore, the trial court erred in law in rejecting the plaint through the impugned order and decree.

4. Despite the fact that on 30.04.2025 last opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the parties to argue this case with a caveat that no further adjournment shall be granted and in case either of the learned counsel for the parties is not available, their clients shall make alternate arrangement and the case was fixed for today. A written request for adjournment has been sent by the learned counsel for the respondents and neither the respondents are in attendance nor any alternate arrangement has been made, therefore, this appeal is being decided on merits.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. spell out the parameters upon which plaint could be rejected. For ease of reference the said provision of law is reproduced herewith:- "

11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:"

7. The afore referred provision of law has been interpreted by the Apex Court and it has been laid down that while exercising such provision only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and no other document can be considered. An exception to the rule is that the documents, which are admitted between the parties can be looked into by the court while exercising its power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. For reference, reliance is placed on judgments reported as Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) Limited (PLD 2012 SC 247), Mrs. Anis Haider and others v. S. Amir Haider and others (2008 SCMR 236), Abdul Waheed v. Mst. Ramzanu and others (2006 SCMR 489), Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 826) and Misree Khan and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 2025 SC 24).

8. In the case in hand, from the bare reading of the contents of the plaint it can be figured out that no question of limitation arises. It may have been an objection on part of the respondents/defendants that the suit is barred by limitation, however, the said objection could have been translated in an issue to be framed under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. and thereupon the said issue could have been treated as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. however in either of the cases, evidence had to be led by the parties and thereupon such an issue could be decided, which in the case in hand has not been done.

9. It is settled proposition of law that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which requires recording of evidence, therefore, the same cannot be decided keeping in view the respective pleadings of parties. For reference, reliance can be placed on judgments reported as Messrs Anwar Textile Mills Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and others (2013 SCMR 1570), Haji Abdul Sattar and others v. Farooq Inayat and others (2013-SCMR 1493), Collector of Customs E and S.T, and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (2005 SCMR 1636), Tariq Mahmood Chaudhry, Kamboh v. Najam un Din (1999-SCMR 2396), Government of the Punjab through Secretary. Education, Lahore v. Shahida Begum (1994 SCMR 1488) and Irshad Ali v. Sajjad Ali and 4 others (PLD 1995 SC 629).

10. Placing the afore-noted discussion in juxtaposition with the facts of the present case, it is clear and obvious that from bare reading of the contents of the plaint it cannot be figured out that the claim put forth by the appellant was barred by time. The application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. by the respondents even otherwise is silent so as to highlight that how the suit was barred by time. These facts clearly demonstrate that for decision on the said stipulation (limitation) evidence was required to be produced by the parties and thereupon the court could have given a finding, however, in a slipshod and cursory manner the trial court rejected the plaint on the sole ground that the suit is barred by limitation, thus the impugned order and decree is not only against facts but is also against law, therefore, the same cannot sustain.

11. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, as a consequence to which the impugned order and decree is set aside, resultantly the suit filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending before the trial court, who shall - redecide the same on merits and in accordance with law. MQ/D-7/L Appeal allowed.