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 and 2 C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,40,82,000 on the strength of a promissory note, dated 28-6-2003 executed A by the defendants Muhammad Nasim-ulHaq 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? OFD
(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 under Order VII, 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, leamed Additional District Judge, Faisalabad returned the plaint under Order Vll rule 10, C.P.C, for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction vide his ordef, 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 simpliciter under Order XXXVH, C.P.C, is not competent in the circumstances stated hereinabove."
5. The present FAO was filed on 14-4-2007 challenging the validity of aforementioned order.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the provisions of Order XXXVll rules 1 and 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 Pro note Exh.P.I, on the basis of which the suit was filed, was required to be unconditional.
8. I have gone through the contents of the plaint, written statements, Pronote Exh.P.1., the agreement Exh.P.2, 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 Exh.P.2, was indicative of "business transaction" and that, therefore, a suit, for rendition of accounts was warranted. Admittedly, the suit filed by the appellant was based on Promissory Note Exh.P.I, invoking the provisions of Order XXXVll C.P.C. Negoitable 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 is.Sue as to the competency of the suit under Order XXXVll rales 1 and 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 6rder XXXVll rules 1 and 2 C.P.C, on strength of promissory note Exh.P.I, was competent and plaintiff/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.
'A. 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 to appear before the learned trial Court, on 15-5-2009.
2. Office is directed to send the record to the learned trial Court within 10 days without fail, along with a copy of this order.