S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. --- Sheikh Muhammad Tayyab-appellant filed a suit before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 23.9.2004 under Order XXXVII, Rules 1&2, C.P.C. For recovery of Re.
40,82,000/- on the strength of a promissory note dated a 28.6.2003 executed by the defendants Muhammad Nasim-ul-Haq and Muhammad Naeem.
2. After obtaining leave to appear and defend the suit, the defendants filed their written statement.
3. The trial proceeded on the following issues as framed on 30.5.2005:- ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the instant:suit? .OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
(3) Whether the instant suit is false, frivolous and vexatious? OPD
(4) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD
(5) Whether this suit is liable to be cancelled U/O ..7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 40,82,000/- in compliance of promissory note' and execution of agreement to sell? OPP
(7) Relief.
4. After concluding the trial and hearing arguments of the parties, Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ullah Mughal, learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction vide his order dated 5.3.2007. The learned Additional District Judge recorded the following reasons for returning the plaint:--- ............. The suit amount being related to the business transaction between the parties can be recovered by filing the suit for rendition of account or recovery of amount against the defendants in the Civil Court. Recovery suit simpliciters under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Is not competent in the circumstances stated hereinabove."
5. The present F.A.O. Was filed on. 14.4.2007 challenging the validity of afore-mentioned order.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. Were totally misconstrued by the learned Additional District Judge and that there was no warrant for returning the plaint after full-dress trial.
7. "On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Pronote Ex.P.1 on the basis of which the suit was filed, was required to be unconditional.
8. I have gone through he contents of the plaint, written statement, Pronote Ex.P.1, the agreement Ex.P.2 as also the entire evidence.
9. A reading of the impugned order dated 5.3.2007 shows that the learned Additional District Judge was influenced by the fact that the agreement -Ex.P.2 was indicative of "business transaction" and that, therefore, a suit for rendition of accounts was warranted. Admittedly, the suit filed bithe appellant was based on Promissory Note Ex.P.1 invoking the provisions of Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
Negotiable instruments always come into existence in consequence of some transactions, rights .
And obligations between the parties and if there were earlier some business transaction, the execution of the -promissory note was quite conscionable. It appears that the parties were throughout aware as to the controversy between them. There was indeed no issue as to the competency of the suit under Order Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. Returning the plaint after fulldress trial was not countenanced. A litigant coming to. Court, and particularly after fulldress trial, is entitled to get a judgment from the Court on merits. I. Would eschew from making any comments on the merits of the case lest any of the parties might be prejudiced.' Suffice it to say that' the suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. On strength of promissory note Ex.P.1 was competent and ,platntiff/appellant was entitled to judgment from the Court on merits. The impugned order dated 5.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad has no legal backing and is, therefore, not sustainable at law.
9. Consequently the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 5.3.2007 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Trial Court for recording judgment on all the issues in the light of evidence on record, after hearing arguments of the parties afresh. The parties are directed tb appear before the learned Trial Court, on. 15.5.2009.
9. Office is directed to send the record to the learned Trial Court within 10 days without fail; alongwith a copy of this order.