' A declaratory suit with consequential relief was filed by Fateh Muhammad respondent on 29-7- 2003 that he was owner in possession of the suit-land being son of Mst. Hukmi. In that, the written statement was filed by the petitioners/defendants where after an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was time-barred; it was barred by law and that the plaintiff had no cause of action. This application was filed on 3-12-2003. Soon afterwards i,e, on 6-12-2003 the respondent/plaintiff made an application under Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in the plaint. These two applications were taken up together by the learned trial Judge who dismissed the application for amendment vide order, dated 8-5-2004 and also proceeded to order the rejection of the plaint as according to him the suit was barred by time and law. Appeal preferred there against by Fateh Muhammad respondent was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 8-7-2004 who allowed the amendment in the plaint and reversed the order passed by the trial Court qua rejection of the plaint and remanded the matter to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. This revision petition has been filed qua the same.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the civil Court had got no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit as the Evacuee Laws stood repealed long before the institution of the suit and the matter had attained finality; the suit was time-barred which had been filed long after the mutation of inheritance and that the suit was not maintainable in law. According to him it was so apparent from the contents of the plaint and of the application subsequently made for seeking amendment therein. It is contended that such a suit which was not maintainable, its pendency and trial would have been merely an abuse of the process of the Court. It is accordingly, contended that the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the rejection of the plaint and the learned Appellate Court illegally interfered with the matter. He has referred to Syed Iftikhar Hussain Zaidi v. Mst. Shafiqa Begum and 30 others 2003 SCMR 844; Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others 2004 SCMR 517; Munir Ahmad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another PLD 1981 Lah. 735; Ch. Ghulam Muhammad v. Mian Habib-ur-Rehman and others PLD 1982 Lah. 368; Sardar Muhammad Mushtaq Khan and 6 others v. Sardar Muhammad Pervez Khan and 14 others 2001 MLD 1725.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand contends that the matter relating to the factual controversies requiring evidence could only be resolved by the civil Court and the plaint cannot be rejected in matters of inheritance on the ground of limitation. According to him the learned Appellate Court has taken correct view of the matter and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision in accordance with law. Reference has been made by him to Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and others 2004 SCMR 604; Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677; Mohsin Khan and 3 others v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others PLD 2004 Lah. 1 and Mst.
Saabran Bibi (widow) and 9 others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and 12 others PLJ 2005 Lah.
454.
4. It may be mentioned that for invoking and applying the provisions of R.11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 certain principles have been laid down by the superior Courts. In Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 826, it was laid down by their Lordships "A plain reading of the Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Would show that the rejection of plaint under this provision of law is contemplated at a stage when the Court has not recorded any evidence in the suit. It is for this reason precisely, that the law permit consideration of only averments made in the plaint for the purpose of deciding whether the plaint should be rejected or not for failure to disclose cause of action or the suit being barred under some provision of law. The Court while taking action for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
Cannot take into consideration pleas raised by the defendant in the suit in his defence, as at that stage the pleas raised by the defendants are only contentions in the proceedings unsupported by any evidence on record. However, if there is some other material before the Court apart from the plaint at that stage which is admitted by the plaintiff, the same can also be looked into and taken into consideration by the Court while rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. (Underlined by me). It thus, becomes permissible for the Court to look into the material that comes before it in order to reach the conclusion whether the plaint deserves to be rejected or not. In the present case, the suit had initially been instituted on 29-7-2003 on the basis of some orders passed by the Rehabilitation Authorities dated 17-2-1962 and of the Revenue Officer dated 18-12-1962. However, later on, an application for amendment in the plaint was filed on 6-12-2003 whereby orders dated 17-8-1963 and of 1-6-1967 were also sought to be assailed. It is of worth noting that order, dated 17- 8-1963 was statedly passed by the D.R.C. (Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner). Such is the material which was brought on record by the respondent/plaintiff by himself. It could obviously be taken note of by the Court. There is no denial of the fact that during the regime of Evacuee Laws (which were repealed with effect from 1-7-1974) the respondent/plaintiff did not assail the orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities in that hierarchy. The said determination had thus, become final, which was sought to be assailed now after a long time through the declaratory suit instituted in the year 2003. In Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 762 a declaratory suit filed in the year 1962 to challenge the order of mutation made in the year 1953 was held as barred by limitation. It was also held that "the Rehabilitation Authorities possess the necessary powers to hold enquiries into claims made by refugees and to.Decide all question of inheritance, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) under the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme Punjab". It was thus, held that since the matter pertain to the exclusive jurisdiction of Rehabilitation Authorities "a similar question could not be allowed to be agitated in the civil Courts". In Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others 2004 SCMR 517, a mutation which had been attested in the year 1964 was sought to be assailed before the civil Court in the year 1978. The dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight and is worth acceptance.
5. To the contrary the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the undeniable position on the record does not hold good nor are the precedents cited by him attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. His contention that the question of limitation does not arise in matters of inheritance is misconceived. In the contextual aspects of this case inasmuch as determination of inheritance had been made by the Rehabilitation Authorities long before the filing of the suit and repeal of Evacuee Laws. It is not understandable why the respondent/plaintiff slept over the matter and failed to agitate at proper time before the proper forum if indeed he had sound foundations for his claim and cause of action. His averments in the initial plaint and later application for amendment indeed belie his claim. His suit was barred by law and was hopelessly time-barred as well.
6.. It may be observed that the provisions of Order VII, rules 11, C.P.C. Are invokable to such suits for rejection of plaints at the initial stage so that the parties are relieved from pursuing vexatious litigation. If on meaningful reading of the plaint and the material brought on record by the plaintiff, the Court finds the suit as meritless and vexatious, it must be nipped in the bud at the initial stage.
The trial of such a suit would have merely prolonged an unnecessary and frivolous litigation. The plaint was thus, rightly rejected by the trial Court which order was illegal reversed by the Appellate Court.
' As a result of the above, the petition is accepted, setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and restoring that of the trial Court, with no order as to costs.