1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--- This is an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and FIA who will ascertain the matter and pass judgment thereon.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a Banking Company, incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984, having its Head Office at S.T.S.M. Foundation Building, CL-10/20/2, Beaumont Road, Civil Line, Karachi and the defendant No.1 was ex-employee of the plaintiff and was working as security officer/manager security with the plaintiff-Bank on contract basis w,e,f, 6- 4-1995 to 27-4-2010 and during his contract period he was transferred/designated as Manager General Service in Administration Division, Head Office, Karachi. Later on, when the post of Manager General Services was abolished by the bank, the service of the defendant No.1 was discontinued on the payment of one month's salary as per requirement of contract. After termination from service, the defendant No.1 sent legal notice to the plaintiff-Bank which was duly replied. Thereafter the defendant No.1 started harassing and blackmailing the management of the bank by moving false applications/complaints to the State Bank of Pakistan and other Agencies. Firstly, he moved written complaints to the State Bank of Pakistan against officials of the bank with false and fabricated facts. The defendant No.1 also sent legal notice dated 13-5-2010 to the plaintiff and through legal notice alleging that he was wrongly dismissed from service. The plaintiff replied the said notice dated 18-5-2010 and denied all the allegations levelled by the defendant No.1 and further informed the defendant No.1 that the reason of termination of his contract service was mentioned in the letter dated 27-4-2010 and also requested not to initiate any false and frivolous litigation against the plaintiff and officials of the plaintiff-Bank. That the defendant No.1 illegally and unlawfully taken away some copies of the official documents and stationary from the record of the bank and thereafter started to make the false complaints to the State Bank of Pakistan, FIA and other agencies against the bank with false and fabricated facts with intention to blackmail the management of the bank and to defame the bank and on the above said false complaint of the defendant No.1, the FIA Corporate Crime Circle, Karachi, held inquiry against the official/employees of the bank. The plaintiff immediately gave reply to the concerned officer of the FIA and also informed that no corruption, theft or any offence has been committed as alleged by the defendant No.
1. The plaintiff also informed that actually the service of the defendant No.1 was discontinued by the plaintiff due to abolition of post but he thereafter started to make the false complaints against the plaintiff with mala fide intention and with ulterior motives just to build the pressure upon the plaintiff-Bank. Thereafter the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 19-6-2010 to the defendant No.1 and requested him not to make false and defamatory complaints against the bank and also to tender unconditional apology to the plaintiff, failing which legal proceedings for recovery of damages will be initiated. The said notice was replied by defendant No.1. That thereafter the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.51 of 2010 for recovery of damages, defamation and permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South and the same was transferred to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Karachi South, Notices/summonses were issued to the defendant. No.1 and he filed his written statement. The plaintiff also filed application under section 94, C.P.C., in the said suit. The defendant No.1 filed his statement and undertook that he will not file any false complaint or application against the bank to the State Bank or any other agency or authority and on the basis of said statement, the said application under section 94, C.P.C. Of the plaintiff was disposed of. That the defendant No.1 has also filed Constitution Petition bearing No.D3246 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh for reinstatement of his services, the said C.P. Was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in limine and the defendant No.1 filed petition for leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the said petition for leave to appeal, in which leave was granted the defendant No.1 has not pressed his prayer for reinstatement or other benefit and only take the corruption and mismanagement grounds before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, leave was granted and said petition is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The plaintiff has also filed C.P.No.1098 of 2010 before Hon'ble High Court of Sindh Karachi against the defendant No.1 and other officials of the FIA along with application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the Hon'ble High Court passed interim order "in the meantime no coercive action may be taken against the petitioners officers on the complaint of the defendant No.1 till next date hearing" and thereafter after hearing, the above said C.P. Has been disposed of vide order dated 16-11-2011. After six months the disposal of the above said C.P. No.1098 of 2010 the defendant No.1 has filed application under section 193, P.P.C. Read with section 476, Cr.P.C. Against the attorney of the plaintiff in the above said C.P., notices were issued to the attorney of the plaintiff and he filed his counter-affidavit to the said application, denying the allegations of the defendant No.1 and above said application is still pending for adjudication. The defendant No.1 has served for about 15 years in the bank and during his service tenure he did not see any corruption and mismanagement but when the bank decided to discontinue contract of the defendant No.1 on the grounds that the post of Manager, General Services was abolished and in keeping in view that he is an old man of about 70 years, the defendant No.1 started to make the harassm ent and blackmailing the management of the bank by moving false and fabricated complaints and also started to defame the bank just to build the pressure upon the plaintiff-Bank.
3. Therefore, the present suit was filed.
4. ' The defendant No.1/applicant has filed the present application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint. The applicant/defendant No.1 who appeared in person stated that it is wrong to state that the complaints were made by him after termination of his service with the plaintiff- Bank as he was terminated on 27-4-2010 while the complaint to State Bank of Pakistan was made on 22-4-2010. He also submitted that the suit is premature as till now it has not been decided whether the complaints were correct or false. Thus, there is not cause of action available to the plaintiff-Bank to initiate this suit with the prayer to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff as under:---
(i) For Recovery of Rs,500 Million as a Damage/Compensation in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally or alternative any other appropriate amount of damages may be assessed by the Court at the time of delivering Judgment and Decree.
(ii) For Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, servants, subordinates, representatives, administrators and other person or persons acting on their behalf from publishing false story/news in the newspapers and from damaging and defaming the reputation of the plaintiff-Bank illegally and unlawfully till the final decision of his suit.
(iii) Cost of the suit.
(iv) Any other relief or relives, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.
5. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is not maintainable as no ground mentioned in said order has been mentioned in the application. He stated that the plaintiff has filed suit for damages/ compensation which would be decided after recording of evidence. He also stated that in para 15 of the plaint complete cause of action has been mentioned on the basis of which the present suit has been filed.
6. ' I have heard the applicant/defendant No.1 in persona and the counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.
7. ' It would be advantageous if the provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., on the basis whereof the present application is made, is reproduced here for ready reference. The same reads as under:--- "Rejection if the plaint.--- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:---
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action.
(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within time to be fixed by the court fails to do so;
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued but the same is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply by the requisite stamp paper within time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement of the plaint to be barred by any law."
8. ' It is established law that while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Only averments made in the plaint can be considered to decide whether the plaintiff has any cause of action or not. No other material can be seen at this stage. It is also well-settled that for such exercise the averments made in the plaint are to be treated as true.
9. ' When the plaint is examined from the above point of view, it transpires that in para 13 of the plaint some allegations have been made against the defendants in the following words:--- "13. That the defamatory and derogatory languages against the plaintiff-Bank has been published with ulterior motives to blackmail the management of the bank so also defame and cause mental torture/agony and damaged the business of the Bank. The reputation of the plaintiff-Bank was seriously damaged/affected and also caused serious mental torture and agony to the management of the Bank and by wrongful way the defendants caused heavy loss to its business.
10. The plaintiff-Bank has claimed damages/compensation of Rs,500 Million against the defendants jointly and severally."
11. ' Thereafter, the cause of action has been shown in para 15 of the r plaintiff, which is asunder:--- That the cause of action arose when the plaintiff-Bank terminated contract services of the defendant No.] and when the defendant No.1 has filed false complaint to the State Bank of Pakistan and to the FM and when the defendant No.1 started to make the harassment by moving false complaints and when defendants No.2 to 4 have published false story in the Newspaper Daily Jang Karachi dated 10-8-2012 and Daily Nai Baat Karachi dated 9-8-2012 with intention to defame the Bank and damage its valuable reputation among the banking circles and Society and caused heavy loss to the hank and when plaintiff-Bank clamed damages and send Legal Notice to the defendants and through notice requested to publish apology and not to publish any false story in the Newspapers and to pay damages / compensation of Rs,500 Million and when the defendant failed to pay the said amount and filed to publish apology and also filed to, give any reply and of the said notice and same is continued day today till today.
12. ' Thus, there are allegations that complaints against officers of the Bank were made to 11A and State Bank of Pakistan but, at the same time, there are also allegations that false and fabricated news stories were published in newspapers which have caused monetary loss to the Bank and had also tarnished the reputation of the bank. This allegation if taken to be correct would definitely result in a decree against the defendants, including defendant No.l. So far as mental torture and mental agony is concerned, the Bank being a fictitious person, cannot suffer such emotions. On this score, only the offices of the Bank against whom complaints were made, if the same are not true, can file a suit for damages and compensation. The news item published in daily "Jang" dated 10 August, 2012, clearly shows that allegation has been levelled against the bank itself of granting contract to one Bina Qazi without inviting tenders through publication of notice in press.
13. ' It is observed that the plaint makes multiple allegations on behalf of the Bank itself and on behalf of the officers of the Bank but the present suit has been filed by the Bank only. Therefore, those allegations which are levelled against its officers cannot be made a cause of action. On behalf of the Bank. However, since there are allegations that the false news items have also tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff-Bank and has also caused monetary loss to the Bank, therefore, the same has to be decided after recording evidence.
14. ' In the case of SHAHZADA v. KHAIRULLAH and others (2012 CLC 773), it was held as under:- "Now moving on to what the trial Court can consider, while deciding the issue of rejection of the plaint, the august Supreme Court has dilated upon this matter in the judgment rendered in the case titled Jewan v, Federation of Pakistan (1994 SCM R 826). The august Supreme Court very clearly laid down that:--- ' The reason for this different approach while rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Is quite obvious. In the former proceedings (under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.) even if the court reaches the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case, it can only refuse to grant temporary injunction and reject the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. But this rejection cannot result in the dismissal of the suit which proceeds to trial notwithstanding a finding by the court that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. On the contrary if the court reaches the conclusion that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action or suit appears to be barred by law the proceedings came to an end immediately and the plaintiff is non-suited before he is allowed an opportunity to lead evidence and substantiate his allegation made in the plaint. We are, therefore of the view that the rejection of the plaint at a preliminary stage when the plaintiff has not led an evidence in support of his case is possible only if the court reaches the conclusion on consideration of the statements contained in the plaint and other material available on record before the court which plaintiff admits as correct."
15. ' In view of the above, I am not inclined to allow the listed application, as it would be premature to dismiss the suit without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove its case. Accordingly, the listed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is dismissed.
2. Adjourned.