' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 26-5-2014 of the District Judge Ghizer has been challenged through this writ petition. Learned first appellate court passed impugned order in a civil revision, C.Rev. No,17/2013, of the said court.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit, C.S. No,04/2012, seeking declaration/ possession of the suit land through exercise of right of pre-emption in the court of Civil Judge Gupis/Yasin. During pendency of the suit, respondents/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint of said suit. Learned trial court heard arguments and through order dated 4-5-2013, dismissed the said petition. Operative part of the said order of trial Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "Arguments considered, record perused. From perusal of record it appears that the contentions of parties cannot be determined at this stage without leading evidence as the alleged facts required appreciation of evidence for their determination. The referred authorities by counsel for plaintiff are relevant but their application to the circumstance of the case in hand cannot be dig out at this stages before adducing evidence by parties. Rule of law strongly condemns to decide the matter arising between parties on technical grounds but rather supports to decide on merits. Hence the petition is hereby dismissed. Put up on 6-6-2013 for P.Ws."
' Feeling aggrieved from the same, respondents filed a Revision Petition (C.Rev. No,17/2013) and the learned District Judge passed the following order:-- "In view of above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. Consequently the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the plaint/suit of the respondent/ plaintiff is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Copy of this judgment be remitted to the trial court forthwith.
File after necessary completion be consigned to record."
3. We have gone through the file and have considered arguments of the learned counsel for parties. In the opinion of counsel for petitioner, the impugned order is wrong in the eye of law.
Learned counsel for respondents opposed the version of counsel for petitioner and contended that the impugned order is correct in all respects. At this stage of the case, we deem it appropriate for reproducing section 115 of C.P.C., which contains the grounds for filing a revision petition:--
115. Revision.---[(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,
4. Obviously, the impugned order is result of a revision filed by respondents/defendants. So the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Are very important to see that whether the learned District Judge has' correctly interfered exercising powers conferred on the said court under the provisions of the said section. It is very important to note that the learned District Judge has passed impugned order on the grounds showing non- maintainability of the suit on grounds other than the grounds embodied in Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. There are three grounds discussed by the learned District Judge, on the basis of which impugned order has been passed. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder the first ground of impugned order:-- "The perusal of record reveals that petitioner No,1 has gifted suit land to the petitioner No,2 and gift deed was executed in favour of petitioner No,2 by the petitioner No,1 on 12-7-2010 and the said gift was also got registered on the same date, i,e,, 12-7-2010, hence the petitioner No,1 has not sold out the suit land to the petitioner No,2."
' The first ground is very interesting and touches the merits of the suit and the conclusion of the first appellate court is very erroneous in his regard as the same is based on either pleadings of the parties or the so far available documentary evidence of the parties. The document referred in this paragraph of the judgment has been filed by the respondents/defendants and relying of the court on such document, particularly at this stage of the case, is really astonishing. Obviously the trial court is yet to afford opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff for rebutting the so filed document. The second ground of the impugned order is that the learned District Judge has held the suit time barred in the light of provisions of Gilgit-Baltistan Preemption Act, 2010. As to limitation, the conclusion of the District Judge is based on erroneous view because the question of limitation is always a mixed question of law and facts and parties must be afforded A chance to meet the same. The third ground of the impugned order is that the learned first appellate court has quoted section 12 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Pre-emption Act, 2010, whereby respondents are required to perform demands/Talbs.This ground has a bit relevancy of attraction of class (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Which goes as under:-
11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a)
(b) ...............................
(c) ...............................
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
' But we do not agree with the District Court on this aspect also as the plaint does not contain any such statement showing that the suit is barred by any other law. This is a version of respondents/defendants. The above quoted law clearly provides for rejection of plaint if the averments' of the - plaint contain any law whereby, a suit is barred. Moreover, the learned trial court has framed issues, which if do not contain this defect, as an issue, the trial court has powers to correct the issues, alter the issues or frame additional issues at any stage of the trial proceedings of the case. It is also not disputed that such defects can be cured at any stage through amendments etc. So the grounds that are basis of impugned order are grounds of dismissal of a suit and any dismissal can be passed only after recording evidence. A rejection can never follow on the grounds or issues which need to be proved through evidence. Almost all the above grounds of the impugned ',Judgment need to be proved through evidence. Moreover, it is evident from the impugned order that the learned District Judge has failed to point out that the above grounds amounted to any illegality enumerated in section 115, C.P.C. (reproduced above).
We have gone through the case-law referred in the impugned order wherein the superior courts have given their opinion, when impugned before said superior courts, on the judgments passed by the District Courts as a result of full trial and not on the basis of any technicality etc.
5. In the result, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned order is based on erroneous views that resulted to miscarriage of justice, therefore, we reverse the same by accepting this writ petition. Accordingly, impugned order set aside and the order dated 4-5-2013 of the trial Court upheld. This file by consigned to record. No order as to costs.