1989 PLP 3641 (MLD)

Fasihul Islam for Defendant No.3. According to Section 3(l) of the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 Federal Government may, for the purposes of promoting and developing uniform standards of competition of sports in Pakistan comparable to the standards prevailing internationally, and regulating and controlling spots in Pakistan on a national basis may constitute one or more boards for the control of sports in Pakistan. In exercise of such powers, the Federal Government issued a notification dated 18-9-1979 constituting the Board of Control for Cricket in Pakistan (BCCP). Article 9(1) of said notification provided inter alia that a Divisional Cricket Association having not less than seventeen active clubs affiliated to it, or having amongst its constituent members not less than two District Associations with seven active clubs affiliated to each, shall be the full member of the Board. Article 14 of the said notification provided that the control, management and supervision of the Board (BCCP) shall vest in the General Body, which shall without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions admit to full membership of the Board (BCCP) a "Divisional Cricket Association' or a City Cricket Association, which is eligible for such membership.

2. Relying on Article 9 of said notification, the plaintiff, which claims being "Karachi Divisional Cricket Association" filed this suit for a declaration that it was a member of the Board of Cricket Control in Pakistan and was entitled to all playing rights and benefits which accrue to a member of the BCCP. Plaintiff also sought issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the affairs of the plaintiff, as member of the BCCP in any manner whatsoever. Plaintiff further sought direction that it shall enjoy playing rights and so also its clubs. With the Suit, plaintiff filed an .a application (C.MA.No.3145/1988) for issue of interim injunction directing stay of an order passed by the BCCP whereby the playing rights of the plaintiff were withdrawn and further directing enjoyment of all the rights by the plaintiff as member of BCCP.

3. Defendant No.2 (BCCP) moved an application (C.MA. No.7630/88) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the prayer sought was beyond the scope of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and that the suit was neither competent nor maintainable, and that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. Both these applications arc proposed to be disposed of under this order.

4. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Ali Sheikh, Advocate for the plaintiff, Mr. Muzaffer Aly Khan, Advocate for the defendant No. 2 and Mr. Fasihul Islam, Advocate for the defendant No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 argued that BCCP was an independent body by virtue of Article 14 of the notification dated 18-9-1979. It had discretion to accept any Divisional Cricket Association as its member or not. It was argued that the plaintiff had applied for membership of BCCP and such application was pending for consideration and consequently this suit was premature, and the plaintiff had no cause of action. It was next argued that the plaintiff had no "Legal character", in respect of which he could seek declaration, and his suit was therefore not maintainable and the plaint deserved to be rejected. In support learned counsel for defendant No.2 cited cases of (i) Mohammad Akhter etc v. Abdul Hadi etc (1981 SCMR 878) (ii) Abdul Rehman Mubashir and others v. Amir Ali Shah and others (.PLC 1978 Lah.113) (iii) Zeenat Begum and others v. Jan Mir Khan and others (1986 C.L.C.2923). In (i) above it was observed that order 7 Rule of 11 of CPC was not exhaustive of all the situations in which a plaint can be rejected. In(ii) above the view taken was that section 42 of the Specific Relief Act applies only to a case where a person riles a suit claiming entitlement to any legal character or any right to property which entitlement is denied by the defendant or in denying which the defendants are interested. In (iii) above, it was observed that- a person having no legal right could not seek declaration for protection thereof.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 argued that grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff would affect right of the defendant No-3.

7. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff association existed before formation of BCCP in 1979, and that the; plaintiff had become member of BCCP ipso facto on issue of the notification dated 18-9-1979, by virtue of Article 9(l) of the same. Grievance of the plaintiff association was that its members were not being allowed to participate in the Cricket Matches sponsored and organized by the BCCP. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that refusal by the BCCP to accept the plaintiff as its member gave continuing cause of action to the plaintiff, whose suit was maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiff disagreed with contention of the other side that the Divisional Cricket Association cannot function as member of BCCP side by side with the City Cricket Association for fear of over lapping. He argued that the plaintiff association had different functions and it had to look after inter alia the cricket clubs situated in the non-urban areas of Karachi Division. It was contended that the plaintiff was being excluded from membership of BCCP mala fidely. Learned counsel for plaintiff cited the case of Nizar Ali v. Noorabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited, and others, where the view taken was that for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. the facts stated in the plaint only were to be consider-,d and the written statement or some foreign matter cannot be considered. He also cited the case of Zikria M. Fazil v. United Bank Limited (1987 CLC 705) where the view taken was that while seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC only the averments made by the plaintiff in his Suit can be looked into and not the pleas raised by a party in defence.

8. The plaint does not merit rejection if all its contents are deemed to be correct in manner and in form. As the facts stand in the plaint, plaintiff Divisional Cricket Association functions as the only association of its kind in Karachi Division and its right to membership of the BCCP cannot be summarily dismissed without going deep into the matter. Article 9(1) and Article 14 of the Notification dated 18-9-1979 require interpretation. Plaintiff seeks declaration in respect of its legal character. Hence prima facie the suit dries not appear to be non maintainable or barred by any provision of law to invite action under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. Hence the application (C.M.A. No.7630/88) for rejection of plaint stands dismissed.

9. During the course of arguments, it was brought out that the plaintiff had moved an application to the BCCP for membership and such application was still pending. This fact was suppressed by the plaintiff, in his plaint. The plaintiff relied on two letters of the BCCP. Under letter dated 7-1-1988 BCCP informed the plaintiff that the playing rights were being conferred upon the plaintiff. Under the same letter the plaintiff was required to submit full particulars justifying plaintiffs affiliation with BCCP and its, membership of the same. Under subsequent letter dated 24-2-1988 BCCP cancelled its earlier letter dated 7-1-1988 and also withdrew the playing rights. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 explained that the letter dated 7-1-1988 was issued by a person, who was not competent to issue such letter and hence BCCP was not bound by the letter dated 7-1-1988 whose author was dismissed from service. However, both the letters viz. 7-1-1988 and dated 24-2-1988 were signed by the same person, viz. Mr. Imtiaz Sipra Manager Administration. Hence the plaintiff cannot disown any of said letters. The documents riled by the plaintiff include photocopy of a letter dated 5-1-1988 by the plaintiff to the BCCP about affiliation of the latter with the former. This shows that the plaintiff had applied to the BCCP for membership. Plaintiff should not have concealed this fact in his plaint, when he was moving the Court for an equitable right.

10. In his application (C.M.A.3145/1988) the plaintiff sought restoration of what he called "playing rights". There is nothing like "playing rights" either in the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 or in the notification dated 18-9-1979. Plaintiff can demand only his legal rights. He cannot demand rights not recognized by law. Thus the plaintiff has no prima facie case for issue of interim injunction and his application (CMA No.3145 of 1988) stands dismissed. H.B.T./K-152/K Application dismissed.