MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, J.---By filing this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the legality of judgments dated 16.05.2012 and 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District, Lahore, by which revision petition filed by respondent against the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore was allowed and the subsequent petition moved by the petitioner under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed respectively.
2. The factual matrix, giving rise to this writ petition and necessary for its fair adjudication is that the present petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Imam Buksh and others, whereby she challenged the sale deed dated 27.03.2006 and general power of attorney deed dated 25.08.1993 being against the facts, law, and based on fraud. On the application of respondent moved under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide order dated 19.04.2010 directed the petitioner to pay court fee of Rs,15,000/- within specified time but she failed to comply with the order of the court, consequently the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on 28.7.2010. The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 13, C.P.C. with the request that rejected plaint be treated as fresh suit but the same was dismissed on 17.02.2011 by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. Thereafter, on 19.02.2011 the petitioner moved second application under the same provision of law after affixing the court fee of Rs,15,000/-, praying for treating the rejected plaint as fresh suit and vide order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore the application was allowed and rejected plaint was treated as fresh suit. The respondent assailed the order dated 25.04.2011 by filing a civil revision, which after hearing both the parties was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide impugned judgment dated ' 16.05.2012 and the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore was set aside and the plaint was treated as rejected. Thereafter, on 24.07.2012, the petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C. for recalling the judgment dated 16.05.2012 passed in revision petition, but the same stood dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. As such by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed these two judgments passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore mainly on the grounds of being without jurisdiction, against law, arbitrary and perverse.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore is in accordance with law and has advanced and promoted the cause of justice. Whereas the impugned judgments dated 16.05.2012 and 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore are based on technicalities, by which the petitioner has been non- suited and as such the same are not sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the case law reported as "Sirajuddin v. Muhammad Sharif (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 883).
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. There is no denial that plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c), C.P.C. for non-payment of court fee by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore and thereafter the first application of the petitioner for treating the rejected plaint as fresh plaint was dismissed. By concealing the fate of that application, the petitioner moved another application with the similar prayer, which was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
6. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore has rightly observed in the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2012 that already rejected plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. cannot be treated as a fresh plaint. Two remedies were available to the petitioner i,e, (i) to file an appeal against that order, which amounted to a decree within the meaning of section 2(2), C.P.C. or (ii) to file a fresh plaint permissible under Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C. After the decision of the revision petition, there was no justification whatsoever for the petitioner to assail that judgment by filing an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. and thus the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore has rightly dismissed that application vide judgment dated 23.01.2015. I have gone through the case law referred supra but the same is not supporting the case of the petitioner.
7. For decision of legal proposition involved in this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to reproduce Order VII, Rule 13 of the Code of Procedure, 1908, as under :--- "13. Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint.---The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds herein-before mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the cause of action."
8. The bare perusal of the rule ibid, makes it crystal clear that rejection of plaint on any ground mentioned in Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. will not preclude from presenting a fresh plaint (emphasis provided) in respect of the same cause of action. In case titled "Memon Educational. Board v.
Munawar Hussain" 2001 YLR 1241 Karachi), it has been held that on rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the plaintiff was not precluded from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of same cause of action in view of provision of Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C. provided the right of action was not barred by any law.
9. The mode and manner adopted by the civil court for treating already rejected plaint as fresh suit is not in line with Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C. The only remedy provided under the rule ibid is the presentation of a fresh plaint and not the restoration of plaint/suit.
10. As such to my view, the impugned judgments passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore are in consonance with law, based on proper interpretation and application of Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C. and as such call for no interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11. The petitioner has also concealed fate of her first application moved under Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C., which was dismissed on 17.02.2011 before the learned Civil Judge, Lahore as well as before this Court and has not even appended the copy of the said order. On this score also, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Consequently this instant civil revision being devoid of merits is dismissed.