SYED' HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioner has assailed in this revision petition, the order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby application of the petitioner/defendant moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
2, Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a suit against the petitioner was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 21,757,6o8/- as damages. The respondent claimed damages for breach of contract dated 6.9.2002, admittedly executed between the parties. The plaintiff claimed damages in para 10 of the plaint as under:-
(i) Loss of service charges of 3rd floor w.e.f. Nov. 2002.
12,100x50x6 Rs. 3,630,000/- 4,500x50x7 Rs. 1,575,000/-
(ii) Depreciation of One Escalator from upto Sep- 03(271,875) Lease Financial Cost of one Escalator Upto Sep-03(330,733) . Rs. 602,608/-
(iii) 4th floor of revenue w.e.f. January 2003 to September, 2003 i.e. Rs. 350,000x9) Rs. 3,150,000/-
(iv) Litigation expenses Rs. 3,00,000/-
(v) Damages to credibility, reputatich, business prospectus and deprivation of the value of property Rs. 12,500,000/- Total Rs. 21,757, 608/- 3 I earned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as, according to him the claim of the respondent qua the damages, has arisen due to legal action initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. It was argued that suit filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction is pending wherein the status quo order was granted to the petitioner on 2.11.2002, which was set aside by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner filed revision against the order of appellate Court. The revision petition was disposed of with the direction that the learned Trial Court shall decide the matter within two months. Since the matter is pending adjudication uefore the Trial Court, therefore, the claim for loss of reputation or litigation expenses dos not arise.
Learned counsel further argues that unless the lis is decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the petitioner, the respondent cannot claim any damages. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of above-contentions, has referred to the following decision:---
(1) Sarwar Khan vs. Habibullah (2004 CLC 1312)
(2) Abdul Rehman vs. Sher Zaman and another (2004 CLC 1340)
(3) Muhammad Akram vs. Mst. Farman Bi (PLD 1990 SC 28)
(4) Abdul Rauf vs. Abdul Razzak and another (PLD 1994 SC 476)
(5) Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vs. Khalid Mehmood (1985 CLC 657)
(6) Malik Khadim Hussain etc. Vs. Haq Nawaz etc. (2004 CLC 184)
(7) Haji Shaukat Ali vs. Abdul Rasheed (2004 CLC 755)
(8) Rafique Ahmed Khan vs. Province of Punjab and others (2004 SCM R 1065)
(9) Chief Officer, District Council vs. Haji Sultan Safdar etc. (1999 YLR 1963)
(10) Abdur Rashid vs. The State Bank of Pakistan and another (PLD 197 Karachi 344)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Mst. Mazhar Khanum vs. Sh.
Saleem Ali etc. (2004 CLC 799) to contend that an incompetent suit should be buried in its buds and the Court should not delay invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, if the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
6. It is settled law that for the purpose of provisions of Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint are only to be considered. The averments of the plaint are deemed as true. While applying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The respondent has sued the petitioner for damages regarding the breach of agreement which as per the averments of the plaint was signed and executed by the petitioner as well as the respondent. It has also been averred in the plaint that petitioner signed and executed the agreement dated 11.8.2002 wherein she admitted her membership of PACE Traders Association and also the validity of agreement dated 26.9.2001. Suit of the respondent has nexus with the present suit. Suit for mandatory injunction, filed by the petitioner titled as Shahnaz Abbas vs. Salman Taseer Chief Executive PACE and others" is independent suit and claim of the respondent for damages does not arise out of this suit. The judgments referred (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relate to the claim of damages regarding the malicious prosecution, while the case in hand, claim of the respondent/plaintiff is the damages for the breach of agreement. Thus controversy involved in the suit cannot be decided unless the issues are framed and the evidence is adduced in accordance with the procedure. The learned Trial Court was right in holding that the plaint cannot be rejected. There is not merit in this revision petition and the same is Dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.