Rejection of suit

2024 YLR 2813 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.104 & O.VII, R.11Suit for declaration and injunctionRejection of suitPrinciple

Suit filed by respondent/Plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order and matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh after framing issue on maintainability

Validity

For determination of whether plaint discloses a cause of action or not, Court has to presume that every averment made in the plaint is true

Power to reject plaint under O.II, R.11, C.P.C., must be exercised only if Court comes to the conclusion that even if all allegations are proved, the plaintiff would still not be entitled to any relief whatsoever

Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was barred by law and had also failed to disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected

High Court set aside, the order passed by Lower Appellate Court, as the same was illegal, unlawful and was passed in illegal exercise of jurisdiction

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1606 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11, O. VII, R.11Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3High Court appealSuit for defamationRejection of suitNew plea before Appellate CourtRes judicata, principle ofApplicability

Defendant filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint but Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application

Appellant raised fresh plea which was not allowed to be agitated in appeal before Division Bench of High Court to support application under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C.

Validity

Application of defendant under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was rejected on his failure to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action and the law did not bar repeating of fresh application on different ground

Plea that suit was barred by law was not agitated before the Trial Court, such plea could not be examined by the appellate Court, which would not only amount to usurpation of power of Trial Court but would also deprive plaintiff of an appellate forum

No fresh plea could be raised before Appellate Court which was not taken before Trial Court in case of rejection of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge

High court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 CLD 1095 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 & O. VII, R. 11Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3High Court appealSuit for defamationRejection of suitNew plea before Appellate CourtRes judicata, principle ofApplicability

Defendant filed application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint but Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application

Appellant raised fresh plea before Division Bench of High Court (in High Court appeal) to support application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Validity

Application of defendant under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was rejected on his failure to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action and the law did not bar repeating of fresh application on different ground

Plea that suit was barred by law was not agitated before the Trial Court, such plea could not be examined by the Appellate Court, which would not only amount to usurpation of power of Trial Court but would also deprive plaintiff of an appellate forum

No fresh plea could be raised before Appellate Court which was not taken before Trial Court in case of rejection of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge

High Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 MLD 1596 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss.42 & 53Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11, S.54 & O.XX, R.18Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entriesRejection of suitPartition of propertyBoth the parties claimed to be in possession of suit propertySuch being a factual controversy, same could only be resolved after calling of evidence from both the sides

Trial Court, without considering that aspect, had simply rejected the suit relying on facts which were yet to be established

View taken by Qazi/Trial Court was not in accordance with relevant provisions of law

Fact that as to which party was in possession, could only be determined by recording of evidence and decision taken thereon

Without calling record from concerned Authorities and evidence, no decision could be arrived at

Trial Court even had failed to observe the provisions regulating the suits filed with prayer for partition

Section 54 and O.XX, R.18, C.P.C., were to be observed while deciding the issues of partition, which the Trial Court had failed to keep in sight.

2010 YLR 2503 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 60, 72 & 91Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.28 & Art.148Failure of mortgagors to redeem mortgaged property within limitation period of 60 yearsRight of mortgageeSuit for declarationRejection of suit

Petitioners being mortgagees with possession of mortgaged property since prior to 1886 (more than 60 years) had filed suit for declaration by claiming prescriptive title of the property in question

Said suit was rejected being not maintainable as the provisions of S.28 of Limitation Act, 1908 were declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by the Supreme Court and a target date 31-8-1991 was given by the Supreme Court to redeem the property

If mortgagee failed to get a decree in his favour before the target date then no decree of prescription could be passed in his favour and no suit could be filed after the said target date

Plaintiffs having filed their suit for the first time in the year 2006, when S.28 of Limitation Act, 1908 was no more on the statute book they could not ask for the decree of title through prescription and as such right of the owners/mortgagors to redeem their property, could not be extinguished by efflux of time

No unlawful exercise of jurisdiction of the courts below having taken place, revision petition was dismissed.

2010 PLD 7 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 3 [as amended by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Regularization of Nautors and Khalsa Land (Amendment) Act, 1989]Azad Jammu and Kashmir Khalsa Land Rules, 1985, R.3Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11Suit for declarationGrant of proprietary rightsRejection of suit

Trial Court rejected suit filed by the plaintiffs for want of cause of action as well as want of jurisdiction and Appellate Court had maintained judgment of the Trial Court

Claim of plaintiffs was that they were local destitutes and in possession of suit land, which was kind of khalsa sarkar since long as Nautor Kunaindah and proprietary rights were granted in their favour by Collector under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land Rules, 1985

Validity

Under amended S.3 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Land Ordinance, 1974 only those persons were entitled to obtain the grant of khalsa land who were holding Nautor Kunaindah on 15-6-1985 and continuous possession of the Nautor and recorded as such in the revenue record

Plaintiffs had made no Nautor over the suit land and in revenue record no entry had been recorded in that respect in favour of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in the earlier round of litigation were also ejected from the suit land-Due to absence of entry in revenue record and after ejectment from suit land, condition of continuous possession was disappeared

Plaintiffs, in circumstances, could not be granted proprietary rights and had no legal right in respect of suit land and had failed to establish the same under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Revenue Authorities were supposed to decide the grant of proprietary rights under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Khalsa Land Rules, 1985 and said authorities had jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly

Revenue authorities in the present case, had not travelled beyond their jurisdiction

Courts below had rightly declared that civil court had no vested jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiff had no cause of action

Courts below having committed no illegality while passing impugned judgments and decrees, appeal being devoid of force, was dismissed.