2008 PLP 1409 (CLC)

MUZAFFAR ALL, J.

This revision petition assails, the order dated 6-11-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge has remitted the Suit No.34 of 2006, by setting aside the rejection order dated 20-9-2007 passed by the learned Civil/trial Judge Gilgit. The facts of the case are as such that, the present respondents filed the Civil Suit No.34 of 2006 before the Court of Civil Judge Gilgit praying for declaration etc. The present petitioners defended the suit by filing their written statement as directed by the trial Court and the trial Court framed issues in the suit for proving and rebutting the same, but during the trial for the suit, the present petitioners submitted an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., praying rejection of the plaint. The learned trial Judge heard the parties on the application and rejected the plaint. The present respondents assailed the rejection order before the learned District Judge, Gilgit in appeal, the same was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit and the learned Additional District Judge heard the parties and remitted the suit to the trial Court for disposal on merits, by setting aside the rejection order, hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and of the opinion that, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers no legal infirmity, which may demand interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction for the reasons that, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out that, (a) the suit does not disclose any cause of action (b) relief claimed in the plaint is under valued (c) court-fee of full value has not been paid or (d) the plaint appears on face of it to be barred by any law. Cause of action construed in Order VII, rule 11, means, the bundle of facts or claims which have been alleged in the plaint and to ascertain cause of action, only the facts stated in the plaint are to be looked into, to determine whether such facts constitute a cause of action, if proved by plaintiff. In the present plaint, the plaintiffs have made a bundle of claims which required to be proved by the plaintiffs and under law they should be given sufficient opportunity to prove. The present plaint, from its perusal does not seems to be hit by any law unless the parties to the suit are given chance to prove or rebut on merits after due procedure is followed by the Court. The allegations in the present petitions, denied by the defendants, can only be decided after framing of issues and after given full chance to prove and rebut the same by the parties, while the trial Court has already framed issues in the case, as such it is better, let the parties to prove and rebut the same through evidence. The above discussion is sufficient to make me in consonance with the learned 1st Appellate Court as such, the impugned order is maintained and the suit is remitted back to the trial Court for disposal on merits, but, I feel that, the parties have wasted time in zeal of early disposal of the suit, by going into application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and afterwards into appeal and revision, therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within a short possible time. Parties to follow their own cost. H.B.T./14/Glt. Order accordingly.