' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---By way of filing this revision petition the petitioners have prayed for setting aside of judgment dated 11-6-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Tersely, the facts of the case, as gleaned out from the instant petition, are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration against respondents Nos.1 to 6 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan which was entrusted to learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahim Yar Khan. Along with the suit the petitioners also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 7-4-2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, which was allowed vide order dated 11-6-2012 and the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioners was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.; hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while deciding appeal against grant of temporary injunction, the learned Additional District Judge was not obliged to dismiss the plaint of the suit under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.; that the petitioner's claim is based on documentary evidence therefore they were illegally knocked out by the learned Appellate Court on the basis of technicalities; that while passing the impugned order the Appellate Court has not referred to any material on the basis of which the impugned order was passed and that valuable rights of the petitioners were involved in the suit but they have been thrown out by the learned Appellate Court in a slipshod manner.
4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. While defending the impugned order submits that as the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioners did not disclose any cause of action, learned Additional District Judge has rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.; that no order of the Canal authorities has been challenged by the petitioners in their suit therefore the same deserve to be nipped in the bud at its inception and that the suit has been filed by the petitioners just to blackmail the officials of the Canal department.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this petition I have noted that the petitioners filed suit for declaration along with permanent injunction seeking direction to the respondents not to minimize the size of 'outlet being used by them to irrigate their land. While submitting written statement the respondents under preliminary objection No,5 took the stance that in the garb of stay order granted by the Civil Court, the plaintiffs/petitioners increased the size of outlet in between the night of 15/16-2-2011. The said question as to whether the size of outlet was illegally maximized by the petitioners or the same was there prior to filing of the suit requires recording of evidence and the petitioners were illegally thrown out by the learned Appellate Court.
6. Another important proposition involved in the instant matter is that as to whether the. Appellate Court was competent to reject the plaint of the suit under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. While dealing with an appeal filed against acceptance of application for grant of temporary injunction or not. In this regard, I am of the view that there is no cavil with the proposition that the plaint of a suit can be rejected by Appellate as well as revisional court, however, it was not proper for the learned Appellate Court to reject the plaint of the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., while dealing with an appeal filed against acceptance of application for interim injunction. In this regard, I am persuaded by the judgments reported as Mst. Amina v. Muhammad Easa and 11 others (2008 YLR 1405), Iftikharul Haq v. District Canal Officer and others (2005 CLC 1740), Muhammad Iqbal v.
Lahore Development Authority and others (2005 YLR 2167), Ihsan Ali v. Sher Muhammad (2004 MLD 1809), Zafar Ahmad Ansari v. Auqaf Department (1996 CLC 892), (1989 MLD 332), Faquir Muhammad and 48 others v. Province of Punjab and 4 others (PLD 1993 Lahore 439), Muhammad Yaqoob and 29 others v. Province of Punjab and 4 others (1993 MLD 918). In the case of Mst. Amina (Supra) it has inier-alia been held as under:-- "The scope of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court was restricted. The lis at that time was pending before the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court, in the circumstances, could not have rejected the plaint of the petitioner at this juncture. It was only to decide the appeal to the extent of the grant of temporary injunction. I am fortified with my above view by a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 MLD 1809 titled Nishan Ali v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others, wherein it has been held that the learned Appellate Court could not reject the plaint while hearing the appeal against the interim order as he was not seized of the main suit. The scope of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court was as to whether the appellant was entitled for the grant or refusal of the temporary injunction. The Appellate Court could not have rejected the plaint as the lis was pending before the learned trial Court.
9. In view of the above circumstances and relying upon the judgment reported in 2004 MLD 1809 titled Nishan Ali v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Court was not competent to reject the plaint of the petitioner while hearing the appeal against the grant of temporary injunction by the learned trial Court. Therefore, this civil revision is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. Resultantly, the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law of course."
7. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and the order dated 11-6-2012, passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said Court for decision afresh.