GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.--- This Civil Revision Application has been filed against the order on the Application under Order VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Court of learned VII Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South), whereby application U/O VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC of applicants was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that Muhammad Amin plaintiff/respondent in the present Civil Revision Application filed Civil Suit bearing No. 1040/2005 in the Court of learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) with the following prayer
(a) Direct the defendants to execute the sale deed of Shop No. 50,' Shahjehan Electronic Centre, Saddar, Karachi in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement executed by Syed lmran Ahmad on 5th of March 2004.
(b) Direct defendant No.1 to withdraw the Rent Case No. 1155 of 2005 filed by the defendant No.1 against Mr. Bilal, the brother of the plaintiff, the ,same being infructuous.
3. The applicants being defendants filed their written statement on 12.5.2006 by denying the allegations of the plaintiff with the prayer to reject the plaint with compensatory cost.
4. From the pleadings issues were settled and the case was fixed for evidence, while on 4.8.2010 an application U/O VII rules 10 & 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the defendants (present applicants) with the prayer that the plaint be rejected on the grounds that plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant. Suit is barred by law of limitation and Specific Relief Act. Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any try the suit and lastly the value of the suit has not mentioned in the plaint but plaintiff mentioned it in Para 3 of the plaint required sale consideration of 1, 86. 00,000/- therefore plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court having jurisdiction.
5. Counter affidavit to this application was filed.By the respondent/plaintiff and after hearing, the application U/O VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC of the applicants/defendants was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29.11.2010 and that order is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application. 6.
Heard Mr. Muhammad Younus, advocate for the applicants and Mr.M.Asif Qureshi, advocate for the Respondent.
7. Advocate for the applicants Mr. Muhammad Younus repeated the contents of the application U/O VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the applicants for rejection of the plaint in his argument and prayed that this Civil Revision Application be allowed and order of the Trial Court be set-aside and plaint be returned. He relied upon the case of Muhammad Akhtar etc v.
Abdul Hadi etc. (1981 SCM R 878), S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through legal heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan
(Moin) through legal heirs (2002 SCM R 338.)
8. Counsel for the respondent contended that the case of the plaintiff/respondent is based on documents, which required evidence. He further contended that written statement was filed in the year 2006 and issues were settled. Case ripe-up for evidence but in the year 2010 this application U/O VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC read with section 151 CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs/applicants for rejection of the plaint only in order to linger on the same. He prayed that Civil Revision Application may be dismissed.
9. I have also perused the file.
10. Admittedly, the claim of the plaintiff/respondent is based on documents which requires evidence. Written statement was filed much earlier before filing of this application and issues were settled. Filing such application for rejection of the plaint with the delay of about 4/5 years amounts to linger on the matter. The suit property values Rs. 1,86,00,000/-, therefore, allowing the application for rejection of plaint U/O VII Rules 10 & 11 CPC read with section 151 CPC at its initial stage without recording evidence of the parties will not be in the interest of justice.
Under the 'circumstances, this Civil Revision application, being merit less is hereby dismissed.
Civil .