Application for rejection of plaint
Application for rejection of plaint legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Relevant facts that need to be looked into for deciding an application under O. VII, R.11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are the averments in the plaint
However, besides averments made in the plaint other material available on record which on its own strength is legally sufficient to completely refute the claim of plaintiff can also be pondered into for the purpose of rejection of the plaint.
Plaint was rejected on the grounds that plaintiffs had no legal right, character and title over the suit land and they were not in possession on the suit property
Validity
Relief in a suit filed under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not dependent upon the title of suit property
Said suit was to be decided only on the ground as to whether plaintiffs were dispossessed from the immovable property without their consent and without due process of law
Plaintiffs in such suit could recover possession notwithstanding any other title that might be set up in that suit
Dispute of possession was a bundle of facts which could not summarily be decided while considering an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside
Matter was remanded to the Trial Court to frame issues including maintainability of suit and decide the controversy at the earliest within four months
Revision was disposed of in circumstances.
Court must put an end to the litigation at the very initial stage when on account of some legal impediments full-fledge trial would be a futile exercise
Rejection of plaint was an exception to general principle that "every lis should be decided on merits"
Such exercise would only be justified when plaint was prima facie found barred by some law or legal impediments
Denial to status/character of plaintiff or title document would require determination thereof by framing appropriate issue and allowing parties to lead their respective evidence
Plaintiffs were claiming the title over the land on the basis of certain documents whereas defendants were disputing such documents
Suit of plaintiffs was otherwise maintainable
Plaintiffs should not be knocked out merely for the reason that defendants had denied or disputed their claims and title
Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiff filed pre-emption suit wherein after recording of his evidence defendant moved application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Contention of plaintiff was that no notice was served by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed
Application for rejection of plaint was accepted concurrently
Validity
Limitation for filing suit to enforce right of pre-emption was 120 days from the date of registration of sale deed, attestation of mutation, physical possession and knowledge of pre-emptor if sale was not covered by first three conditions as enumerated in S. 31, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987
Present suit had been filed after about more than six months which was beyond the period of limitation
Plaint was rightly rejected by the Trial Court being time barred
Appellate Court modified the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court from rejection of plaint to dismissal of suit
Judgment of the Appellate Court was not correct and in consonance with law to the extent of modification
Time-barred suit was barred by law
Issuance of public notice had no nexus with the period of limitation prescribed for filing suit for pre-emption
Period of limitation in case of sale effected through registered sale deed would be reckoned from the registration of the same and not from the knowledge of pre-emptor
Pre-emptor was required to file suit within a period of 120 days failing which the suit would not be maintainable
Plaintiff acquired knowledge of sale on 02-06-2008 but he remained mum for a period of 26 days
Provisions of issuance of notice would not be attracted in the present case
Pre-emptor was estopped by his own conduct in filing the suit with delay
Sub-Registrar had issued the notice in accordance with the procedure
Plaintiff had not mentioned the date of sending of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint which was legal requirement under the law
Delivery of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad had not been proved by the plaintiff
Acknowledgement-due card was not available on the file and postman had not been examined in support of service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad
Presumption would be that no notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was served upon the vendee
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiff filed suit wherein defendants moved an application for rejection of plaint which was accepted by the Trial Court but Appellate Court remanded the case
Validity
Serious allegations had been made in the plaint apart from the knowledge that plaintiff came to know prior to two months about the impugned mutation
Defendants rebutted such allegations by filing written statement
Trial Court rejected the plaint which was not warranted by law as contents of plaint had to be taken on its face value
Allegations made in the plaint could not be ignored without pro and contra evidence
Provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was not attracted in cases where factual controversy was involved
Question of limitation being mixed question of law and fact could be properly adhered to after recording of for and against evidence
Plaint could only be rejected on the grounds mentioned in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and not otherwise
Disclosure of cause of action could not be easily and readily accepted in cases where serious allegations were made
Court was bound to ask for the defence and after affording opportunity of producing pro and contra evidence the matter should be decided
Non-impleadment of the beneficiaries of subsequent mutations could not be taken as a ground for rejection of plaint
No suit should be defeated by reason of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties and same could be met with under O.I, R.10, C.P.C.
Order I, R.10, C.P.C. empowered the court to add or strike down any party ought to have been joined or improperly joined at any stage of proceedings
Appellate Court had rightly remanded the case as provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were not attracted nor the lis could be hit under O.I, R.9, C.P.C. and provision of O.I, R.10, C.P.C. were for redress and warranted no interference
Revision petition was dismissed.
Contention of authorities was that accommodation in question in favour of plaintiff's father had been cancelled and his status was that of "un-authorized occupant"
Plaint was rejected by the courts below
Validity
Plaintiff was appointed on contingency basis who could not call himself a Federal government servant during his period of six months' service
Plaintiff was not eligible for government accommodation during the six months' period after his father's retirement
Benefit of Rule 15(2) of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 could be extended only to serving spouse or children living with Federal government servant who might be allotted the same accommodation if eligible otherwise
Plaintiff had become a trespasser after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of retirement of his father
Plaintiff could not hold on to the government accommodation that had been allotted to his father
Plaintiff should apply for government accommodation and wait for queue/general waiting list
Both the courts below had exercised jurisdiction correctly while rejecting the plaint
No jurisdictional error or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of authorities was that accommodation in question in favour of plaintiff's father had been cancelled and his status was that of "un-authorized occupant"
Plaint was rejected by the courts below
Validity
Plaintiff was appointed on contingency basis who could not call himself a Federal government servant during his period of six months' service
Plaintiff was not eligible for government accommodation during the six months' period after his father's retirement
Benefit of R.15(2) of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 could be extended only to serving spouse or children living with Federal government servant who might be allotted the same accommodation if eligible otherwise
Plaintiff had become a trespasser after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of retirement of his father
Plaintiff could not hold on to the government accommodation that had been allotted to his father
Plaintiff should apply for government accommodation and wait for queue/general waiting list
Both the courts below had exercised jurisdiction correctly while rejecting the plaint
No jurisdictional error or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Suit for compensation and damages against bank for inter alia malicious prosecution and compensation for misappropriation of stocks
Territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court
Contention of the applicant/defendant was inter alia that the immovable property mortgaged by plaintiff was situated at place "L", and suit for recovery filed by the defendant against plaintiff was pending at Banking Court at place "L", therefore, the court in the present case lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over the case
Held, that plaintiff had not prayed for any relief in respect of immovable property situated at place "L", that was mortgaged by him and had not sought its recovery, redemption or determination of his rights thereto or for compensation for wrong to said property
Section 16, C.P.C. provided that suits that sought any of the above reliefs should be instituted in the court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situated
Averments contained in the plaint clearly showed that suit was for compensation and damages for alleged malicious prosecution and for tortious acts allegedly committed by defendants and therefore S.16, C.P.C. did not apply to the present case
Under S.19 of C.P.C., if wrong was done within local limits of jurisdiction of one court and defendant resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, within local limits of another court, suit may be instituted at the option of plaintiff in either of said courts and S.20, C.P.C. also provided that suit shall be instituted in a court within whose limits the defendant at the time of commencement of suit, resided or carried out business or where the cause of action partly or wholly arose
By virtue of Ss.19 & 20, C.P.C., therefore, the court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit
Present suit not being a banking matter, could not be transferred to Banking Court at place "L"
Application for rejection of plaint, was dismissed in circumstances.
In case of dismissal further suit was barred, whereas in case of rejection, there was no bar to further suit on separate cause of action
Defendant filed application of rejection of plaint but the court had dismissed the suit
Dismissal of suit was not permissible under law
Impugned order was modified to the extent of dismissal of suit
High Court rejected the suit under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Plaintiff filed pre-emption suit wherein defendant moved application under O. VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the grounds that suit was barred by law, that pre-emptor had failed to deposit 1/3rd of the pre-emption amount within time and impugned transaction had been cancelled
Application was accepted concurrently
Validity
Suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation but both the courts below had not attended the remaining two grounds taken in the application
Nothing was on record which could show about the attestation of impugned mutation
Statements of some of the vendors were recorded but neither the entry of mutation nor the recording of such statements were sufficient to close the proceedings of sale which required the attestation by the revenue officer in the form of an order
Both the courts below had committed illegality while computing the period of limitation from the date of entry of mutation
Revision was accepted and impugned orders of both the courts below were set aside and case was remitted back with the direction to the Trial Court to see that sale had been completed and remaining grounds taken in the application be looked into.
Plaintiffs had challenged the legality of mutation on the ground of its being based on fraud which was a separate cause of action
Question of fraud, res judicata and limitation could be resolved only after recording of evidence
Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was based on sound reasons and was in accordance with law
No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree was found
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of husband was that wife was residing in United Kingdom and Family Court in Pakistan had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by the Family Court
Validity
Court in whose jurisdiction cause of action wholly or in part arose or parties were residing or last resided together would have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit
Cause of action had not arisen in Pakistan in the present case
Both the parties were residing in United Kingdom at the time of marriage and they last resided together there
Rule 6 (b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules was not applicable to the facts of present case
Wife was not ordinarily residing in Pakistan but both the parties were residing in United Kingdom and their Nikah ceremony and Rukhsati were also performed there
Differences between the parties arose in United Kingdom and matter was adjudicated upon by the Fiqah Council Birmingham of United Kingdom
Wife had filed suit for dissolution of marriage before Family Court in Pakistan in violation of R.6 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965
Said Rule did not grant right to wife to institute suit for dissolution of marriage in Pakistan
Temporary visit of wife to Pakistan would not give jurisdiction to Family Court in Pakistan to entertain the suit
Family Court in Pakistan having no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, impugned order was without lawful authority
Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
Averments of written statement could not be considered for rejection of plaint which was filed for declaration that plaintiff was owner of suit property based on registered sale-deed
Validity or genuineness of sale-deed could be determined in trial
Second series of suit could not be a tool for rejection of plaint
Suit could be dismissed being not maintainable
No findings existed with regard to registered sale-deed and entries entered in revenue record on the basis of the same
Plaint could not be rejected summarily when cause of action had been disclosed
Impugned orders of both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded for proceedings in accordance with law.
Complaints were made by defendants to FIA and State Bank against the Bank and false news stories and its employees tarnishing reputation of bank were published in newspaper
Suit for recovery of damages and compensation on behalf of Bank
Contention of defendant was that no cause of action had been disclosed in the suit
Validity
Averments made in the plaint could only be considered while deciding application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.
No other material could be seen at such stage
Averments made in the plaint were to be treated as true
In the present case, allegations had been made against the defendant in the plaint and cause of action had been shown
Such allegations if taken to be correct would result into a decree
Bank being a fictitious person could not suffer from mental torture and agony
Only officers of the Bank against whom complaints were submitted could file a suit for damages and compensation if same were not true
Plaint had made allegations on behalf of Bank itself and on behalf of officers of the Bank but present suit had been filed by the Bank only
Allegations which were levelled against the officers of Bank could not be made a cause of action on behalf of Bank
Allegations with regard to false news tarnishing reputation of plaintiff-Bank had to be decided after recording of evidence
Dismissal of suit without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff-Bank to adduce evidence would be premature
Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of defendant was that cause of action had ceased to exist on account of cancellation of sale-deed and revival of suit-land in favour of original owner
Application for rejection of plaint was accepted by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court
Validity
Exercise of jurisdiction under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. in the pre-emption suit could only be invoked where the suit did not prima facie establish category of pre-emptor and any failure in performing talbs
Once there was a valid, complete and bona fide sale which had given rise to right of pre-emption to the pre-emptor then defendant could not frustrate such right by any way
Pre-emption could be claimed on the basis of ownership existing at the time of sale and not on the basis of subsequent ownership
Improvement in the status of vendee after institution of suit did not defeat the right of pre-emptor whether same was his intentional act or was natural event
Subsequent cancellation of sale or re-transfer of suit-land or any other attempt made by the vendee-defendant would not affect the right of pre-emption
Impugned sale-deed did not specify whether same was conditional or incomplete
Defendant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court
Revision was dismissed.
"Application for rejection of plaint", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944554
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Application for rejection of plaint"
2002 C L C 1862
NAZIR AHMAD and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MAJEEDA BEGUM and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2021 C L D 536
MUHAMMAD SAEE KHAN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2001 C L C 660
SIGALLO ASIA LIMITED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AKBAR ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED and 4 others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1992 C L C 1954
KHAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2026 C L C 913
MUHAMMAD ASIF KAMAL PASHA — Petitioner Versus PARVEEN AKHTAR and others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar (D.I.Khan Bench)P L D 2002 Karachi 408
SHAHEEM NASIR KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. ASMAT ARA and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:1989 M L D 3875
MOHIUDDIN ANSARI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI — Respondent
Court: Karachi2018 M L D 918
Dr. RAEES M. MUSHTAQUE through General Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Food and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)2013 C L C 1892
MUBARAK ALI — Petitioner Versus SAQIB MUNIR — Respondent
Court: Lahore1987 C L C 1745
Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR IQBAL‑‑Plaintiff Versus BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION and another‑‑Defendants
Court: Karachi