' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the appellant filed suit for the recovery of Rs,41,28,401 in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Pattoki against the respondent. The respondent filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint raising various preliminary objections. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Before the trial Court. The trial Court accepted the same vide order dated 19-11-2002. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in law to reject the plaint of the appellant merely relying upon paras.7 and 11 of the plaint without adverting to the contents of paras.14 and 15. He further submits that question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. He further submits that the trial Court rejected the plaint without adverting to section 15 of Limitation Act. He further urges that the impugned order is not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on Irshad Ali v. Sajjad Ali and 4 others PLD 1995 SC 629 and Rasab Khan and another v. Abdul Ghani and 4 others PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 69.
3. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to see, whether the suit is within the time or not; in view of section 3 of the Limitation Act, he further urges that application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. May be filed at any stage of the proceedings.
He further urges that criminal case was also got registered by the appellant against the respondent and also admitted qua the shortage in paras.7 and 11 of the plaint, therefore, the trial Court was justified to return the plaint of the appellant which is in accordance with parameters prescribed by the Legislator in its wisdom under Order VII, rule 11,.C.P.C.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and examined the record ourselves.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the plaint to resolve the controversy:--
(7) "That during 1988 on the pointation of PASCO Inspection Team that huge quantity of wheat stocks have been found short at reservoir Bhai Pheru, a Board of officers under the Presidentship of Dr. Khushi Muhammad DGM(F) was constituted to determine the short quantity of wheat stocks and dead stock at the said reservoir. The probe conducted by the said Board pointed out huge shortages of wheat and Bardana. Since the findings of the Stock Taking Board amply/indicated/established the existence of shortages in wheat stocks/dead stocks, the same on remand to Audit has been finally determined/confirmed and substantiated in the course of final audit held at consequence. The photocopy of the extract of the said audit report is enclosed as (Annex- The figures of short quantity of wheat, Bardana and tarpaulins i.e, 638.15 M. Tons of wheat, 6898 A-class Bardana and 1573 B-Class Bardana valuing Rs,17,84,602-15 relating to the charge of the official. Board's proceedings enclosed as (Annex-D).
(11) That the Board carried out physical verification and formulated report about shortages etc. Vide their letter dated 13-4-1988 indicating total shortages of wheat and Bardana at reservoir Bhai Pheru. Copy of statement showing shortages is enclosed (As Annex- C).
(14) That defendant No,1 and defendant No,2 were served with charge-sheet dated 2-12-1995 and dated 12-9-1995 (Annex-J and K), on the ground of shortage of 638.15 NI Tons wheat 898 A-Class Bardana and 1573-B Class Bardana total valuing Rs,17,84,602-15 at Reservior Bhai Pheru Project Pattoki, Wheat Crop-1987, but satisfactory response from the defendants have not been received which caused this suit.
(15) That the cause of action arose on 2-12-1995 and 12-9-1995 when defendants Nos .1 and 2 were charge-sheettd (Annex-1 and Annex-K).
'The trial Court has considered only paras.7 and I I at the time of deciding the application under Order VII, rule I1. C.P.C. As is evident from para.6 of the impugned order. It is admitted fact that the trial Court ha decided the application without adverting to the contents of paras.14 and 15 of the plaint. It is settled principle of law that document must be read as a whole and not a piecemeal as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following cases:-- ' In PLD 1970 SC 173 the relevant portion is as follows:-- "Lalit Mohan Das v. The Advocate General, Orissa and another PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 219; ' Hakim Khan and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others PLD 1992 SC 595 ' Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1993 SC 473."
' This fact brings the case in the area that the trial Court has decided the application without application of judicial mind, which is a condition precedent upon the Presiding Officer to decide the controversy between the parties after application of judicial mind. Even the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the controversy between the parties after application of mind after addition of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-eAzam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCM R 2268. The judgment of the trial Court is not in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1970 SC 158 and the relevant observation is as follows:-- "Such an order, we regret to say, does not disclose a proper application of the mind of the High Court to the merits of the case that was before it. As was pointed out by this Court in the case of Adamjee Jute Mills Limited v. The Province of East Pakistan."
"To deal with the second contention first, there is no doubt that the High Court's order which is unfortunately perfunctory gives the impression of a hasty off-hand decision which, although found to be correct in its result, is most deficient in its content. If a summary order of rejection can be made in such terms, there is no reason why a similar order of acceptance saying "there is considerable in the substance in the petition which is accepted" should not be equally blessed. This will reduce the whole judicial process to authoritarian decrees without the need for logic and reasoning which have always been the traditional pillars of judicial pronouncements investing them with their primary excellence of propriety and judicial balance."
' It is also settled principle of law that question of limitation is always mixed E question of law and fact as law laid down in Rehmat Shah v. Amir Gul NLR 1992 SCJ 92. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order of the trial Court is not in consonance of the provisions of the Limitation Act as well as the law laid down by the Superior Courts, therefore. The same is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court to decide afresh after framing the issues keeping in view the pleas taken by the parties in the plaint and the written statement. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-1-2005, who is directed to decide the case afresh on merits in accordance with law.