' YAR MUHAMMAD, J.--- This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 05-08-2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Gilgit in CFA No,62/2014 whereby the learned Judge while dismissing the appeal has upheld the Judgment/decree dated 03-05-2014 passed by Civil Judge, Gilgit vide which the learned trial Judge while disposing an application filed by the respondents under rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Had rejected the Suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
2. Relevant facts leading to this revision petition as disclosed in the plaint are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Gilgit seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner of suit land measuring about 4 kanals, 8 marlas as described at the heading of the plaint situated at Soniyar, Juglote along with one house, a show-room and a petrol pump constructed on the said land. As consequential relief, he has prayed for delivery of possession of the suit property by dispossessing the defendants.
3. Defendant/respondent-1 contested the suit by filing written statement whereby he contended that the suit property has purchased by him through sale deed dated 01-04-2009 and subsequently mutation thereof has also been attested on 31-06-2009 in his favour.
4. When the suit was pending subjudice in the trial Court that on 12-03-2014 the respondents/defendants pressed into service an application invoking the provisions laid under rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Seeking rejection of the plaint. The application was resisted by the plaintiff but after hearing the parties the learned trial Court through his order dated 03-05-2014 while accepting the application rejected the plaint. This order was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge, Gilgit through filing the above appeal but inconsequence hence, this petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Islamuddin, Advocate for the petitioner and M/s. Basharat Hussain and Mehmood-ul-Hassan, Advocates for the respondents at length and have gone through the entire material available on file with their able assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that plaintiff has filed a declaratory suit praying himself to be declared exclusive owner of the suit land with the contention that the respondents are possessing the suit property as tenants but have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement regarding jointly running of the suit petrol pump, therefore, they are liable to be dispossessed from .The suit property. The learned counsel for the contesting defendant/ respondent-1 on the other hand contended that plaintiff has sold the suit property to him on 01-04-2009 through sale deed and he has paid the sale proceed in accordance with the terms and condition laid in the agreement. They next argued that on the basis of sale agreement Mutation No,1194 was also attested in his favour. They argued that later on the plaintiff by preferring an application requested the revenue authorities for cancellation of the mutation. Consequently, proceedings on the application was commenced and during the proceedings the plaintiff recorded his statement before Tehsildar admitting the version of the defendants. They submitted that in view of the above mentioned evidence the suit was not maintainable as such the same has rightly been rejected.
6. I have gone through pleadings of the parties in detail and the provisions laid under rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. A plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; 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; where the suit appears from the statement in the .Plaint to be barred by any law. I have gone through the plaint in detail and have come to safe conclusion that none of the above defects, prima facie, appears in the plaint leading same to be rejected.
7. Before rejecting a plaint the Court has also to see that when the averment made therein if accepted in mode and form, do not entitle plaintiff to a relief it can reject the plaint. Provisions of rule 11, Order VII, C.P.C. Can only be invoked if there is no room for any other A approach to the case and that no triable issue is made out in the case or suit is clearly hit by any mandatory provision of law justifying rejection of the plaint. While deciding the application like under consideration the Courts are required to see mainly the averments of the plaint avoiding deeper examination, of the contents of the written statement.
8. The claim made in the plaint and denial of the same by the answering defendants being serious in nature are required to be framed issues upon, so that the controversies may be determined after providing full opportunities to the parties to meet the points. Moreover, as per the modes and ways provided in the procedure, a suit can also be disposed of after framing of issues upon the divergent pleading and after doing so the Court on its own or on the basis of any application from only of the parties can take issues of law first if in the opinion of the Court the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of the law only, it shall try those issues first.
The instant case, in my opinion, demands thorough investigation so that precious rights of the parties involved therein may be addressed' properly.
For the reasons what have been discussed above, the revision petition is accepted, set aside the impugned orders of the two Courts D below. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the trial Court for adjudication on merit.