' This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 22-12-1977 by which the order of rejection of plaint passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore on 6-11-1977 has been upheld.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit for the grant of perpetual injunction from causing interference in the possession over the land' measuring 146 kanals and 1 marla detailed in the plaint. Along with the suit there was an application for the grant of temporary injunction and the learned trial Court not only dismissed the application for the grant of temporary injunction but also rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. Solely on the ground that the respondents had produced the copy of the latest Jamabandi wherein they had been shown to be in possession of the land in dispute and from this it was concluded that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The basis of the suit filed by the petitioner was that he claimed the possession as a tenant and was interesting in protecting his possession unless evicted by a due course of law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that order of rejection of a plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. Could only he passed if reading of the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, it is further submitted that an inquiry into the factum of possession would he only made on the trial of the suit. As regards this proposition there 14 no dispute and reference may be made to Inayat Ali Shah v. Province of the Punjab (1). The bar to reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P.
C. Is only if the Court comes to the conclusion that even if all the allegations are proved the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief whatever. Reliance may also be made to L. Collins v.
Charles Booth & Co. Ltd. (2) and Smt. Bhauria Manikraj Kuar v. Smt. Amarbas Kuar (3). In the latter case it was observed as under:- "It is a fundamental principle that the plaintiff's case cannot be dismissed without hearing such relevant evidence as the plaintiff desires to adduce, except on the footing that the allegations of fact in the plaintiff's plaints are assumed or admitted to be true."
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has not seriously contested this proposition and has argued the case on merits. The learned counsel placed reliance on Khasra Girdawari and the order of rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioner to pre-empt the sale which has been ordered to be rejected by the Collector. The question of grant of temporary injunction, is separate from the question of rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. The plaint can only be rejected if all the averments contained therein are admitted as correct. The question of temporary injunction may be decided on the basis of the documents placed on the record and other attending circumstances keeping in view the well-recognised principles for the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules I and 2, C. P. C. In the present case the temporary injunction had been refused on the same grounds on which it had been held that the plaint did not disclose a Cause of action. If under the law the plaint could not be rejected, I have no option than to accept this revision, set aside the original order of rejection of the plaint as well as the ing to grant temporary injunction. I shall have to direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the application for the grant of temporary injunction afresh uninfluenced by the order of rejection of the plaint. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this course being adopted which is in all fairness to both the parties.
5. In the light of the above observations I set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, dated 6-11- 1977 and that of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 22-12-1977 and direct that the suit to be proceeded in accordance with law. It is further directed that the question of grant of temporary injunction be also decided afresh and till then status quo shall be ordered to be maintained.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the question of rejection of the plaint has already taken two years and the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Lah. 859 (2) AIR 1921 Sind 106
(3) AIR 1944 Pat. 38 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' matter is to be decided afresh the learned trial Court should be directed to expeditiously dispose of the suit within a specified period. The request seems to be reasonable. It is, therefore, further directed that the learned trial Court shall dispose of the entire suit within three months, as only a very short question is involved in the main suit.
7. As the respondent has been very fair in the disposal of this revision there will be no order as to costs.