2021 PLP 864 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. the petitioner has called in question the validity and propriety of the impugned judgment/order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Skardu whereby the learned first appellate court has set aside the judgment/ order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.50/18 by accepting D.F.C. No.96/28. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant revision petition are that the present respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter called as respondents) had instituted suit for declaration and possession of suit land fully described in the head note of plaint against the present petitioner/defendant (hereinafter called as petitioner) in the trial court claiming that being legal heirs of their maternal grandfather they are entitled to get their shari share from the legacy of their maternal grandfather which is in the possession of the petitioner. The present petitioner being defendant in the suit had appeared before the learned trial court and resisted the suit by filing written statement, wherein he has raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments of the plaint. Out of divergent pleading of the parties, the learned trial court has framed necessary issues and the matter was fixed for respondents/plaintiffs evidence and in the mean while the present petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in the learned trial court for rejection of plaint. The learned trial court after obtaining reply to the aforesaid application and hearing of arguments on behalf both the parties had allowed the application of present petitioner and the plaint of the present respondents was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide order dated 12.11.2018. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/Order passed by the learned trial court the present respondents had filed civil first appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Skardu which was allowed by learned first appellate court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 07.05.2019, hence this revision petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned first appellate court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by learned first appellate is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned first appellate court has failed to apply its judicious thought while deciding the civil first appeal of the present respondents and has wrongly set aside the well reasoned judgment/order of the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 07.05.2019, hence the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned first appellate court is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the learned trial court had wrongly rejected the plaint of the respondents/ plaintiffs due to mis-conception of facts and law and has committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgment/order dated 12.11.2018. The learned counsel for respondents further contended that the learned first appellate court has rightly allowed the civil first appeal of respondents by setting aside the judgment/ order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned first appellate court may be maintained and this revision petition being meritless may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. Admittedly the suit/ plaint can be rejected on the following grounds: - "

11. Rejection of plaint.

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- (a). Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b). Whether 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 property 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. From bare reading of the aforementioned reproduced provisions of law it appears that the learned trial court has not rejected the suit/ plaint of respondents on the above mentioned grounds rather the learned trial court has rejected the suit/plaint of the respondents going deep into merits of the case and discussing documentary evidence produced along with their pleadings by the parties which is not permissible under law. From perusal of contents of plaint it shows that the respondents have made bundle of claims which required to be proved by the respondents and under law they should be given sufficient opportunity to prove their allegations/ claims by adducing evidence. The respondents/plaintiffs have also disclosed cause of action in para No.7 of the plaint. The allegations/claims asserted in plaint and written statement can only be decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties. Perusal of record further reveals that the learned trial court has already framed issues and case of respondents/plaintiffs was fixed for plaintiffs evidence as such the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. at such a belated stage. In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court has committed material irregularity and illegality while rejecting the plaint of respondents under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., therefore, learned first appellate court has rightly set aside the judgment/order passed by the learned trial court through its appellate jurisdiction. Thus the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned first appellate court does not require interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. For what has been discussed above this revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment/order passed by learned first appellate court is maintained. File. MH/141/GB Revision dismissed.