Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J. -- The above titled appeal by leave of the Court arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 29.03.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, herein, has been accepted.
2. Necessary facts of the case as depicted form the record are that Hammad Raza Ansari, respondent No.5, herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction against Wajahat Hussain Ansari, respondent No.1, herein, and others in the Court of Civil Judge Court No.I, Muzaffarabad on 21.03.2012. It was claimed that defendant respondent No.2, herein, is an adopted son of defendant respondent No.1, herein, and not a real son. It was averred that according to Muslim Personal Law, the status of adopted son is not like a real son, therefore, defendant No.2 may be prohibited from posing himself as son of respondent No.1 and showing his caste as Khan Khail. The suit was contested by the other side by filing written statement whereby the claim of the plaintiff was refuted in toto. An application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC was also filed which was objected to by the other side. The learned trial Court framed issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties and treated issue No.1 and 2 as preliminary issues. After hearing the parties on preliminary issues the trial Court rejected the application for rejection of the plaint through order dated 18.05.2013. Against the aforesaid order defendant-respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the District Judge Muzaffarabad who maintained the order of the trial Court with slight modification. Feeling aggrieved, defendant respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the High Court. The learned High Court while treating the revision petition as writ petition accepted the same and the suit filed by the plaintiff was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2017, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Amjad Hameed Siddiqui, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant stated the brief facts of the case and contents of the plaint and forcefully argued that the learned High Court has fell in error of law. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court acted in accordance with law while rejecting the request of the respondents. As the disputed questions of law were involved which can only be resolved after recording of the evidence, thus, there was no violation of law. The learned High Court through the impugned judgment illegally issued the writ and rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. He further argued that according to the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah an adopted son cannot inherit the property. This proposition is involved in the suit, thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is against the principles of Islamic law. He submitted that while accepting this appeal the impugned judgment may be set-aside.
4. Conversely, Syed Hazoor Imam Kazmi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents forcefully defended the impugned judgment on the ground that according to the celebrated principle of law for maintaining the suit the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that he has got any legal cause of action or any of his legal right is involved. The law does not authorize any person to file suit for academic purpose or academic discussion. As the plaint according to its contents and prayed relief on the face of it is against law disclosing no cause of action, thus, not maintainable. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court totally failed to act according to law, thus, there was no option for the respondents except to approach the High Court for relief in writ jurisdiction.
The High Court has rightly exercised the powers and rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC.
5. We have paid our utmost attention to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. Through the impugned judgment the learned High Court while accepting the writ petition rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. According to our considered opinion, the law has provided a comprehensive scheme regarding the proceeding in the plaint. According to the provisions of Order VII, Rule 1, CPC it is the duty of the plaintiff to mention, among others, all the particulars in the plaint constituting the cause of action and when it arose. When this provision is appreciated in juxtaposition with Rule 11, it becomes clear that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action.
According to the enunciated principle of law, for determination of this proposition the plaint has to be minutely appreciated. In this case, it is nowhere mentioned in the plaint that any of the legal right, interest or right to the property of the plaintiff is adversely affected or injured. He has prayed in the plaint for following relief:- {{URDU TEXT}} Thus, in view of the particulars of the plaint and prayed relief for determination of the proposition whether the plaintiff has got any legal cause of action, the Court has to proceed further. According to peculiar facts of this case, as mentioned hereinabove that the plaintiff has not brought on record any particular that any of his legal right is affected by the acts of the defendants. It is very noval and strange that the plaintiff prayed relief against the persons in denial of their relationship of parentage.
6. So far as the question of inheritance to the adopted son is concerned, there is no cavil with the principle of law that according to the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah the adopted son cannot claim inheritance but in this case no question of inheritance is involved rather a third person has approached the Court to restrain the persons declaring and claiming to be father and son and that too without mentioning any particular that any right of the plaintiff is adversely affected or he has got nay cause of action. In this state of affairs, without any legal cause of action or disclosing the material facts and particulars that the plaintiff has got any cause of action, proceeding with the plaint is not permissible under law. This Court while dealing with the identical proposition regarding the rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosing and non-availability of cause of action held in the case reported as Mehboob Kashmiri and another vs. Khurshid Ahmed and another [2011 SCR 492] that: "8. It has been noted that while drafting the plaint unnecessary facts and reliefs are claimed with when the suit is read as a whole and the right which the plaintiff claims a right to the judgment is not created. This is correct that composition of a suit may not include every fact, it is only every fact which is necessary for a judgment in favour of a plaintiff. In the case in hand the legal grounds upon which the plaintiff/respondent maintained action most of them appear to be irrelevant and a decree cannot be granted as no right, which is the first requirement for a decree of declaration, exists in favour of plaintiff-respondent and if in this suit, which was originally filed for declaration and perpetual injunction, the relief of possession claimed through amendment is allowed, still a judgment for decree cannot be passed in favour of respondent, therefore, by accepting the appeal the judgment of the High Court dated 27.1.2010 is set aside and the judgments/decrees recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court are maintained..."
As in this case, according to the settled principle of law the plaintiff has failed to bring on record the particulars justifying that he has got any legal cause of action, thus, in view of juxtapose appreciation of the provisions of Rule 1 and 11 of Order VII, CPC the Court was under the legal duty to reject such plaint which did not disclose any cause of action. The plain phraseology of Rule 11, Order VII, CPC makes it mandatory that the trial Court shall reject such plaint which does not disclose cause of action. As the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has failed to act in accordance with law, thus, in this state of affairs the High Court has rightly exercised the writ jurisdiction. Although, the impugned judgment has been handed down on certain other reasons but the same is consistent with the spirit of law, hence, does not suffer from any patent illegality.
Therefore, this appeal having no substance, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.