SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Learned counsel for the parties state that a short point is involved and the main appeal be heard today rather than the C.M. Application. Consequently, with the consent of the parties the main appeal is being heard.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a resolution of the respondent No.1 as well as the power of attorney and sale-deed executed in pursuance thereof. The plaint in the said suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Vide the impugned order, dated 29-5-2006 on the ground that the suit was barred by .Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have frankly conceded that the basis for rejection of the plaint as disclosed in the impugned order may not be tenable in law. However, the plaint nevertheless was liable to be rejected on other grounds.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order and the decree that followed, dated 29-3-2006 are not sustainable and in the circumstances it would be appropriate that the respondents, who were defendants in the suit, may take all the objections to the maintainability of the suit which can always be adjudicated upon by the trial Court after hearing the parties and thereby ensuring that none of the parties is taken by surprise. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order and the decree are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for the decision afresh.
The respondents may file an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Setting out the grounds for rejection of the plaint. -The trial Court shall decide the said application, if filed, within four months of the filing of the said application. Appeal is accepted and in the above terms.