'HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI, J.---The petitioner has assailed the order dated 10-6-2009 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on the application of the defendant filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that plaintiff has no cause of action and compromise has been effected between the parties; that infact respondent No,1 executed an agreement dated 8-11-2007 for the sale of property i.e, Plot No,24, Category-III, Scheme LXI-4. The application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was resisted by the plaintiff by filing written reply before the learned trial Court. It is mentioned in the impugned order dated 10-6-2009 that defendant No,2 earlier moved such an application on 25-2-2009 under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C., which was rejected on 28-7-2008 by the Civil Judge, Lahore. Although, the plaintiff had filed a revision before the learned District Judge, Lahore, which was not maintainable before the said Court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. Anyhow, the said revision was decided by the learned District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 17-9-2008, relevant para is reproduced as under:--- "A perusal indicates that what has been agitated before me has substance. It appears that the learned lower Court did not take enough caution in assuming jurisdiction in the matter. As a certain silence prevailed regarding valuation in the court-fee clause. It would be proper to direct the learned lower Court to get the court-fee clause corrected prior to other things as only then it would be proper to see as to which Court has the basic jurisdiction as that would also determine the revisional jurisdiction in the matter. It is observed that the same be done at the earliest. No other comment is made in the matter. The revision petition is disposed of in light of the above observation. Copy of this order be sent to the learned lower Court immediately. File be consigned to the record room."
3. The second application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was moved on 24-2-2009 by the defendant of which reply was also filed. Learned trial Court vide order dated 10-6-2009 dismissed the same and learned trial Court rightly observed in the judgment/order dated 10-6-2009 that earlier application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Was rejected on 28-7-2008 the said order was not set aside and the same was intact, so, this second application was not maintainable.
4. Anyhow, it is established principle of law that while rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Only the contents of the plaint can be perused and no other material can be considered while rejecting such application. I am fortified in this regard from the plethora of reported cases reported as Muhammad Zafar-uz-Zaman and 4 others v. Faqir Muhammad through legal heirs PLD 2001 Supreme Court 449, Ghulam Ali v. Asmat Ullah and other 1990 SCMR 1630, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and another v. Mercantile Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd. And another PLD 1989 Lahore 320, Sarwar Khan v. Habib Ullah 2004 CLC 1312 Peshawar, Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdul Rehman and others 1995 SCMR 459 and Mst. Siraj Zamani v. Kh. Azhar Iqbal and 9 others 2004 MLD 337.
Beside the above said judgments there are other countless judgment which gives the support while rejecting application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Only the contents of plaint can be looked into. The suit filed by the respondent is for declaration, permanent injunction and B cancellation of agreement dated 8-11-2007, which can be decided only after recording of evidence as there are certain facts which are very much disputed, even, the alleged compromise agreement is disputed.
The contents of the plaint establish the cause of action which is very much there. The Civil Judge, who had taken cognizance in the beginning, had sent a reference to District Judge, Lahore to transfer the case to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction on the ground that dispute relating to agreement to sell of property valuing Rs,34,00,000 was involved and Rs,34,00,000 was beyond the jurisdiction of Civil Judge II-Class, Learned District Judge, Lahore on reference of learned trial Court transferred the case to Civil Judge 1st Class which means power of jurisdiction was admitted Rs,34,00,000. Learned trial Court has fixed the case for filing of written statement and written reply in application for grant of temporary injunction for 24-6-2009. Certainly, there might have been naturally some progress in the suit. I feel no necessity to interfere in the impugned order dated 10- 6-2009 passed by the learned trial Court, which must have progress. Strangely, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned District Judge against the order dated 28-7-2008 passed on the first application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Agreement of property for sale was Rs,34,00,000. It was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, the first revision should have been filed directly in the High Court as in the rejection of second application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., this revision petition is directly filed in the High Court which is dismissed, as the learned counsel failed to point out any illegality, irregularity in the impugned order. The said revision petition is dismissed in limine.