CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.-This appeal, with our leave, is filed to assail the propriety of the judgment of the High Court dated 216.2010.
2. The precise summary of facts giving rise to this appeal is that the respondents filed a declaratory suit in; the Court of Civil Judge Mirpur on 24.4.2001 with the following prayer:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 submitted written statement on 19.10.2004, whereas defendants Nos. 18 to 20 admitted the suit of the plaintiff and filed admission on 19.10.2004. However, the appellants- defendants, later on, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action, the plaint is ambiguous and the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. Moreover, there is no statement regarding the specification and identification of the suit land and the suit is barred by law. The plaintiffs filed their objections.
The learned Trial Court observed that the plaint is ambiguous and the prayer for correction of the Revenue record is barred under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Thus, the plaint was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2004. An appeal against this order .Met the same fate vide judgment of the Additional District Judge Mirpur dated 28.2.2006. The. Plaintiffs-respondents filed second appeal in the High Court which succeeded and the learned Chief Justice of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 216.2010 set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts and remanded the case to the Trial Court for hearing and disposal on merit.
3. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, who is also the appellant, argued the case at some length. He stated briefcase history and referred to some orders of the Court passed in previous round of litigation. He further by referring some Revenue record submitted that the suit is not maintainable.
While discussing the contents of the plaint, he. Forcefully contended that the plaint is ambiguous one. The plaintiffs have prayed for decree of possession but without mentioning the survey numbers or description of suit land. According to his version, even according to contents of the plaint, the suit is not maintainable. He also argued that for rejection of plaint not only the averments made in the plaint but also the other record available with the Court and the version of the defendants should also be considered. He further contended that the suit is also barred under the provisions of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act in the light of the judgment reported as 2000 SCR 211. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has passed the to law, whereas the impugned judgment of the High Court is not maintainable being inconsistent with the principle of law, thus this appeal merits acceptance.
4. Muhammad Reaz A lam, the learned counsel for the respondents, while controverting the arguments of Chaudhary Muhammad Afzal, appellant, forcefully defended the impugned judgment. He submitted that the codal provision is very much clear that at the stage of rejection of the plaint only fhe contents of the plaint has to be considered and nothing else. He further submitted that after submission of written statement by the appellant-defendants, without framing issues . The rejection of plaint is unwarranted under law. So far the - contention of the appellant that the plaint is ambiguous, is concerned, he submitted that it is a lesult of misconception and has ho substance. The plaintiffs-respondents have prayed in the suit with the averment that in the Revenue, record some entries contrary to the or ground position, have been incorporated, therefore, without ascertaining the actual position of the suit property and determination of its boundary, it is not possible to pray for possession of the specific survey number unless after due process of law the actual ground position is determined and thereafter the Survey number is allotted. He further contended that the perusal of the plaint makes it clear that according to its contents neither the suit is barred by law nor it falls within any of mischiefs of Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC. Moreover, the questions raised in application are questions of facts, which can only be resolved after appreciation of the required proof, therefore, the learned Chief Justice High Court has rightly set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts and remanded the case to the Trial Court for hear mg and disposal on merit.
5. We have paid our utmost attention to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record made available. The only point which requires consideration is application of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. According to the version of the learned counsel for the appellant, not only the plaint but the documents annexed with the plaint and the defence version should also be considered by the Court while deciding the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. Although the codal provision is very much clear and doesn't admit any such interpretation to permit that for the rejection of the plaint the other material should also be considered, but in sortie judgments the superior Courts have opined that the documents annexed with the plaint referred to in the averments of the plaint which are undisputed or admitted may also be considered. Be that as it may, however it is the interpretation of the Courts, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases. We have no cavil with the principle that for rejection of plaint consideration of undisputed and admitted material or the documents in support of averments of plaint may considered by the Court, but the statutory provisions are abundantly clear. In Haji Allah Bakhsh's case (1995 SCM R 459) the Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt this proposition in the following manner "4. The above contention seems to be devoid of any force. In order to press into service the provisions of Order VII/ Rule 11, C.P.C., the averments contained in the plaint are to be presumed to be correct. On the above assumption the plaint is to be examined clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The above clauses read as follows:- "(a) Whether it does not disclose a cause of action?
(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so.
(d) Where the suit appears from the -statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. "
S. In the present case on the basis of the contents of the plaint, it could not have been held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation in spite of the time fixed by the Court or the plaint is written upon insufficient stamp paper and the plaintiff failed to supply the requisite stamp-piper within the time fixed by the Court or that the suit was barred from the statement in the plaint by any law, In this view of the learned Civil Judge was competent to reject the above application under Order VII, Rule li, P.C. The petitioner is free to raise whatever legal . Or factual pleas are available to him to show that the suit is not maintainable but the rejection of the plaint could not have been sought on the above grounds which pressed into service. Leave is refused."
' In a case reported as 2008 SCM R 1037, the apex Court has held:- "4. We have examined the impugned judgment as well as material available on record in the light of arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well-settled principle of law that a plaint can be rejected if the case falls within the fore-corners for the provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.G. Keeping in view the contents of the plaint and material available on record in respect whereof there is no dispute between the parties;- we. Inquired from the learned counsel as to whether averment made in the application seeking rejection of the plaint by the petitioner were accepted and the facts mentioned therein were admitted by the other side, he stated that contents whereof were denied, Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the that so as the question of earlier between the parties and its disposal in of compromise is concerned, it is n question 'which can only be settled after framing of issue recording of evidence because parties are at variance on it and the respondent being plaintiff had not admitted the same in reply of the application. Since the Trial Court had entertained the plaint on the basis of whatever cause of action was mentioned therein, therefore, under these circumstances, it would be appropriate if the Trial Court is allowed to proceed with the matter and thereafter decide the issues including the one with regard to previous litigation ended with compromise between the parties after recording of evidence."
The averments Of the plaint and the material referred to reveal that the parties are at variance on question of fact which cannot be resolved without recording the evidence. In such a state of affairs the rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 is not justified. This Court in a case reported as 2010 SCR 295 held:- "May be as it is our own study of relevant provisions of law and the authorities of superior Courts on identical points make it abundantly clear that each of the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording any evidence. The phraseology applied particularly that of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Does not clearly give an impression of binding nature that the Court cannot look into the facts brought on record. It is correct that the Trial Court before rejecting defence version, but after the other party has filed written statement and issues have been framed by the Court, the preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording evidence, if the Court finds itself of the opinion that the preliminary issues can better be decided after recording of evidence. The principle of concurrent findings of facts is equally applicable in such-like cases. The appellants can raise the objection of rejection of plaint on the basis of preliminary issues after recording of evidence.
' The judgments recorded by the Courts below, therefore, need no indulgence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
' In another case reported as 2003 SCM R 1284, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that on the question of res-judicata the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC rather such question can only be resolved after framing proper issues. In Fatima Moheen's case reported as 1992 SCM R 1199, rejection of plaint on the question of limitation was declined. There are plethora of ^judgments on this legal proposition, however, the survey of case-law reveals that for rejection of plaint under provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The main consideration is the contents of the plaint or keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case some undisputed or admitted material or documents made available, which according the nature of the averments of the plaint can be considered as a part of plaint, may also be considered. When on this touch stone the present case is judged, we don't feel any hesitation in holding that appreciation of the averments of the plaint and the documents do not help us to draw the conclusion that the plaintiffs have no cause of action or the suit is barred by law.
6. The plaintiffs have claimed multiple remedies in their prayer clause which has been reproduced hereinabove. Even for the sake of argument, if any one of the prayer cannot be granted it doesn't mean that the suit will be treated barred for all other remedies claimed therein. While attending this question the superior Courts are unanimous on the question that under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, the plaint can only be rejected if all the reliefs claimed are barred under the law. If some of the reliefs claimed are available, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of one of the relief which cannot be granted because under the codal provisions, there is no concept of piecemeal rejection of the plaint. The latest judgment on the point is Azhar Muhammad v. AUs. Memon Housing Services (2009 M LD 1378) wherein it has been held:~ "It is by now well-settled principle of law that existence or absence of a cause of action is to be discovered from the recital of plaint or the documents on which such plaint is based and where a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, plaintiff has a right to have a fair trial notwithstanding the defence taken in the written statement. Likewise a plaint can only be rejected where all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were barred by any law, however, where some of the reliefs claimed are barred the plaint cannot be rejected as a plaint can only be rejected as a whole and not in piecemeal."
(underlining is ours)
7. Another ground on the strength of which the appellant stressed for rejection of plaint is Kh.
Muhammad Akbar's case reported as 2000 SCR 211, in which it has been observed that the Civil Court cannot issue direction to the Revenue authorities regarding the correction of entries of the Revenue record, We have no cavil with the principle of law laid down in this report buj at the same time it has not been laid, down that on this sole ground the plaint can be rejected if the plaintiff has prayed for some other remedies as well. Our this view is even fortified from the same report, the concluding para of which speaks:-- "In the light of what has been stated above, we partly accept the appeal and, amend the Judgments and decrees of, the District Judge and the High Court in terms that the Trial Court shall not issue any direction regarding the correction of the entries to the revenue, authorities as prayed by the plaintiffs-respondents. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the Trial Court shall decide the same according to law."
' The main objection of the appellant that the plaint is ambiguous one and there is no specific description of property, in our opinion on mere non-description of the property the suit cannot be dismissed or the plaint cannot be rejected. In a recent case reported as 2009 SCR 237 it has been observed as following:.- " Apart from that the rules of law enunciated above clearly laid down that the suit cannot be dismissed or rejected under Order VII, Rule 3 on the -that there is any ambiguity in description of property."
8. In our considered opinion the respondents have also filed the written statement and the controversial points emerged from the pleading of the parties requires framing of issues. Under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, even the Trial Court is .Equipped with the powers that after framing issues if the suit can be disposed of partly or toto by deciding on purely legal issues, it can be done so but without framing issues or providing opportunity to the parties in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the rejection of the-plaint is not justified. Thus the impugned judgment of the High Court doesn't suffer from any legal infirmity, hence the same is upheld.
Consequently this appeal fails without any order as to costs.