P L D 1997 Azad J&K 11 (PLP)

"

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 bar d by any law."

7. For attraction of sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. it is required to be seen as to what cause of action means? The term 'cause of action' refers to every fact which if traversed, it should be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right. It means the whole of material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove, in order to succeed. Precisely, the term, 'cause of action' refers to the ground on the basis of which the plaintiff asks for a favourable judgment. The term, 'cause of action' came under discussion before the Lahore High Court in a case titled 'Rehmat Bibi v. Ramzani PLD 1967 Lahore 1074 wherein it was held as under:-- A cause of action is the sum total of all those allegations upon which, the right to the relief claimed is founded. It includes every fact, which it would be necessary to prove, if traversed, in order to enable a plaintiff to sustain his action. In determining as to what is a cause of action, one is not concerned as to what is the nature of the defence that may be set up, but he has only to see what is alleged in the plaint. The facts that are alleged in the plaint and which require to be proved without proof of which the plaintiff would not be entitled to a judgment constitute the cause of action. Every such fact which it is necessary to prove, therefore, would form a part of the cause of action. It is, therefore, to be ascertained from the allegations in the plaint as to what is the cause of action in each ease.

8. A similar proposition also came under consideration before another Bench of the Lahore High Court in a case titled Abdul Rehman v. Wahid Bakhsh and others PLD 1977 Lahore 1243 which was resolved in the following manner: -- It is true that the cause of action, as generally understood means bundle of facts which is traversed, a suitor claiming relief is required to prove for obtaining judgment. Nevertheless, it does not mean that even if one such fact, a constituent of cause of action is id existence, the claim can succeed. The totality of the facts must co-exist and if anything is wanting the claim would be incompetent. A part is included in the whole but the whole can never be equal to the part. It is also well understood that not only -the party seeking relief should have a cause of action when the transaction or the alleged act is done but also at the time of the institution of the claim. For example. there may be a case where at the time when an action is brought, there is no right to seek the remedy though the remedy was available when the right was infringed. A suitor is required to show that not only a right has been infringed in a manner to entitle him to a relief but also that when he approached the Court, the right to seek the relief was in existence." Note.--The underlining is mine).

9. Keeping in view the relevant law and the authorities quoted above, it can safely be resolved that a suit can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. if the same does not disclose a cause of action for which the plaintiff is not only to allege the bundle of facts but is also required to show that not only the right has been infringed but a right to seek a relief was in existence. It may also be observed that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. are not exhaustive. Therefore, if at any stage, it appears to the Court that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw the Court's attention to B the same by way of an application and the Court can decide the matter under the above rule, i.e. Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. as the policy of law is that the incompetent suits should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as not being permitted bylaw. In a cause where a suit is not permitted implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint. Reliance in this regard is placed on a Division Bench case of Dacca jurisdiction titled Burmah Eastern Ltd. v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190 wherein it was observed as under:-- Although under Order VII, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint if, on a perusal thereof, it appears that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw Court's attention to the same by way of an application. The Court can, and, in most cases, does hear lawyers on the points involved in the application. The principles involved are two fold: In the first place, it contemplates that a still-born suit should be properly buried, at its inception, so that no further time is consumed on a fruitless litigation. Secondly, it gives plaintiff a chance to retrace his steps, at the earliest possible moment, so that, if permissible under law, he may find properly constituted case. Order VII, rule 11 of the Code, enumerates certain categories under which the Court is called upon to reject a plaint, but it is obvious that they are not exhaustive. It appears from the language of rule 11 of Order VII that it requires that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as not being permitted by law. A suit may, be specifically barred by law and, in such an event, the matter would come under the express terms of clause (d) of rule 11 of Order VII of the Code, But, even in a case where a suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint. This really amounts to saying that Order VII, rule 11, is not exhaustive. "

10. The case, 'Syed Zahid Hussain and another v. C.D.A., Islamabad 1979 CLC 502 can also be referred in support of the proposition wherein the following observations were made:-- 0 . VII, R.11

Plaint, rejection of

Petitioner's own case being of allotment having been made in their favour by Minister but Minister having no such jurisdiction

Petitioner not alleging allotment having been made by Authority or possession having been given to them by such Authority

Petitioners alleging to have taken possession by virtue of an agreement with another but such person having surrendered his right to Authority having no right to pass over possession to petitioners

Trial Court, held, ought to have passed an order dismissing plaint, on strength of allegations made in plaint itself without framing an issue on point

First Appellate Court, however, held further, having its jurisdiction confined almost to setting aside of order of issuance of temporary injunction devoid of jurisdiction to reject plaint.--'

11. Reliance is also placed on the case titled "T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and another AIR 1977 SC 2421, wherein it was laid down as under:-- "

If on a meaningful

not formal

reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial Court should exercise its power under 0.7, R.I1,aC.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The trial Courts should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.--'

12. Applying the principles enunciated in the aforementioned Authorities, keeping in view the facts involved in the present case, the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. was correctly made and did not require. any interference by this Court, particularly in second appeal. It may also be clarified C that the plaintiff-appellant in presence of the Notification referred to above, shall have no case to substantiate. Therefore, the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. were correctly attracted. The appeal, in the circumstances, stands dismissed with costs throughout. Announced. A . A. / 129/AJ&K Appeal dismissed.