1998 PLP 663 (SCMR)

MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9‑4‑1996 passed by Peshawar High Court Dera Ismail Khan Bench.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to present petition are, that on 6‑5‑1993 petitioner filed suit before Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat, seeking possession through pre‑emption concerning a plot alongwith house, measuring about three Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos.6367/6276/3501 Mauza Khuda‑e‑Dad Khel. Respondents contested the claim and filed written statement. However, before effective proceedings were drawn that towards 6‑6‑1993 respondents submitted an application seeking rejection of the plaint. After hearing the parties, trial Court rejected the plaint and directed dismissal of suit by means of judgment/decree dated 8‑2‑1994. Appeal filed against the above decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment/decree dated 14‑9‑1994. Similarly Revision Petition No.221 of 1994 filed by petitioner challenging the above referred decisions of the two Courts below was rejected by Dera Ismail Khan Bench of the Peshawar High Court, vide judgment dated 9‑4‑1996, which has been impugned through present petition.

3. Mr. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, for the petitioner relying on the dictum laid in case reported in 1990 SCMR 1630 (Ghulam Ali v: Asmatullah) urged that rejection of plaint could be ordered only at the initial stages merely on the averments of the plaint and without drawing proceedings or embarkment upon merits. It was argued that while determining question of limitation in the instant case it was necessary to provide opportunity for producing evidence but same has been arbitrarily denied, therefore, impugned judgments were inherently defective.

4. Opposing the petition on behalf of respondents it was contended that plaintiff ought to have explained circumstances which reflect that suit was filed within prescribed period of limitation. He maintained that allegation contained in the plaint did not disclose valid cause of action and suit glaringly suffered from bar of limitation, therefore, forums below were justified in passing impugned judgments.

5. We have perused the record and considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil to the proposition that normally question pertaining to rejection of plaint should be dealt with at the initial stage. However, on bare perusal of the plaint, it may be seen that petitioner has consciously omitted to provide any detail showing cause of delay for approaching the Court or actual date of his knowledge about delivery of possession of 'suit land' to contesting respondents. Since petitioner was basing his claim of limitation from date of knowledge, it was obligatory for him to specifically assert the date when he became aware about the alienation of disputed property or delivery of its possession. The forums below have rejected the plaint mainly on considering plain averments and detail mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, we do not find any material defect, impropriety or illegality in the impugned judgments. Accordingly refusing leave to appeal the petition is dismissed. A.A./S‑30/S Leave refused