1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The appellant has assailed, the rejection order dated 7-7-2008 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, in Civil Suit No,34 of 2008, whereby the learned lower Court has rejected the plaint declaring the same to be based on contingent agreement.
2. ' The facts gave birth to the present dispute between the parties are that, the plaintiff is a registered company dealing in business of construction and consultation services, having its main office in Gilgit, while the defendant No,1 is a Chinese group of business, having name CLIC. Plaintiff and the defendant No,1 entered into the agreement dated November, 1998, whereby the defendant declared plaintiff as representative/agent of the defendant No,1 in Pakistan to get 18 MW Hydro Power project at Naltar, in Gilgit Pak and in consideration, the defendant No,1 pledged to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs,2.5% of the contract amount as commission/services charges, hence the plaintiff extended his services and succeeded to cause the above said contract to be awarded to the defendant No,1, after that the plaintiff and the defendant No,1 faced disputes inter se, in respect of the commission or other dealing. They tried to solve the disputes by entering into an another agreement, dated 19th April, 2004, but failed to solve the same, hence the litigations in the Court of law, the instant suit is the 2nd series, while the plaint in the 1st Suit No,110 of 2007 had been rejected by the trial Court and the rejection order was upheld by this Court.
3. ' We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. ' The learned counsel argued the following points to impugn the rejection order of the trial Court that (a) the plaint categorically transpires that indeed the contract between the parties is of contingent nature but the defendant No,1 deliberately and with mala fide intention to keep the plaintiff deprive from taking his due share, does not intend to take steps to fulfil the requirements on his part, which may cause the happening of the events as are precondition in the said agreements. He referred paras.10, 11 and 13 of the plaint in support of his plea. (b) that under law, only the averments of plaint are taken into consideration to ascertain whether the same discloses any cause of action or not, and no defence plea is allowed to look into and also the availability or non-availability of evidence is not a question which comes in domain of the rejection of the plaint, but the learned trial Court has visited beyond the scope of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. And has based his rejection order on non-availability of evidence on the record, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support, he cited the case-law (1) PLD 1989 Lah. Page 320, (2) 1992 MLD 474, (3) 2007 CLC page 163, (4) 2008 CLC 1409 N.A. Chief Court 1409.
5. ' In response to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that, since the contract between the parties is contingent in nature and under section 32 of the Contract Act, 1872 no contingent contract can be enforced unless and until the stipulated event has happened and the case in hand the stipulated event in the contract between the parties has not happened, hence the suit is premature and no cause of action has arisen against the defendants. He further stated that the plaintiff had filed Suit No,110 of 2007, the plaint of which has been rejected on the above point by the learned trial Court and was upheld by this Court and the previous suit and the suit in hand are of same nature and no different event or cause of action has been shown in the present plaint, hence the rejection order of the trial Court needs not to interfere by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following case-law and also cited the judgment dated 6-9-2007 passed by this Court between the parties to the instant suit (1) 2000 MLD 251, (2) 2004 MLD 1349.
6. 'We have gone through the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and also have visited the record of the case, we deem it proper, 1st to discuss the purport of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
7. As the same has been persistently misconceived by the lower judiciary in the cases came before it, despite the fact this Court has in many cases tried to interpret Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. i,e, 2008 CLC 1409 NA Chief Court but the lower judiciary either ignores the guidelines of this Court or have not gone through, however, through this judgment we strictly direct the lower judiciary to follow the case-law passed by this Court as the same is binding on them. Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Enables a Court to reject the plaint, if the Judge after going through the averments of the plaint comes to the conclusion that, (a) the same does not disclose cause of action or (b) the claim is under-valued and the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation within time fixed by the Court or (c) the claim is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and despite the orders by the Court to supply requisite stamp paper within the fixed time, failed. (d) the suit seems to be barred by any law from the perusal of the statement in the plaint.
8. It is pertinent to note here that rejection order under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Does not preclude the claim and fresh plaint can be filed after curing the defects stated in the rejection order, as envisaged in Order VII, rule 13, C.P.C. While dismissal of the suit on merits bars fresh or 2nd suit on the same cause and claim. The second point to understand, at the time of dealing the matter of rejection of the plaint, is that, only averments of the plaint are to look into to ascertain whether the plaint lacks the points stated in Order VII, rule 11 and no insufficiency or sufficiency of evidence requires to be looked into and even points taken in defence are not required to be considered.
9. ' Keeping in view the above discussion, now we come to the interpretation of the points (a) and (d) stated in the rider para. As both requires interpretation,
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.--- cause of action means bundle of facts which have been claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and non-disclosure of cause of action in Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Construes, if after perusal of the averments of the plaint and plaint only, the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to disclose any actionable cause against the defendant, then the Court is within jurisdiction to reject the plaint and the Court can travel within the four corners of the plaint and not beyond that, meaning thereby is that, the Court cannot reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not attached or attached insufficient evidence with the plaint to prove the facts which construe cause of action.
(b) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; The statement in the plaint.--- the words used do connote that, to ascertain whether the suit is barred by any law, the Court is to look into the statement of the plaint only and from "the statement of the plaint" if it seems to the Court that some inquiry or evidence is needed to come into conclusion that the suit is barred by any law then the Court has no jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Such issues are required to be framed and proof or rebuttal of the same needed to adduce evidence or to go into detail enquiry by ensuing further trial.
10. ' Now we are coming to the case in hand, indeed the present suit is second one on the same subject-matter, the first No,110 of 2007 was rejected by the trial Court and the rejection order was confirmed by this Court, but the difference between the two plaints is that, in the previous plaint, the plaintiff had straightaway filed the suit for recovery on the basis of above stated agreement deeds and the agreement proved to be contingent agreements and the Court hold that, the events mentioned in the agreements have not been happened, hence the Courts declared the suit premature and the plaint was rejected, but in the present plaint, the plaintiff has taken the plea that, the respondent No,1 within mala fide intentions to deprive the plaintiff from getting agreed amount, creates hurdle on the way of happening of the events as stated in the agreements or he does not take steps which may cause the happening of the event in this regard paras.10, 11 and 13 are required to be looked into and if the plaintiff is allowed to prove this allegation against the defendant through evidence, it may be an actionable cause against the defendant No,1 but the learned trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the plaint and has erred in law and travelled beyond the scope of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. By holding that the plaintiff has not attached any documents with the plaint while looking into any documentary or oral evidence is not within the scope of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
11. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that, the impugned rejection order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the suit is remitted back to the trial Court to try the same and dispose of on merits. No order as to cost.