SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) is directed against the order and decree dated 17th March, 2021 (hereinafter "the impugned order and decree") passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I/Civil Judge, Dera Allah Yar (hereinafter "the trial Court"), whereby, civil suit filed by the petitioner was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) and upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Dera Allah Yar (hereinafter "the appellate Court") vide judgment and decree dated 28th May, 2021 (hereinafter "the impugned judgment and decree").
2. The succinct facts of the case are that plaintiff (petitioner) filed Civil Suit No.53 of 2020 against the defendants (respondents) for Declaration, Possession, and Permanent Injunction with the averments that the petitioner was recorded owner and in possession of land situated in Deh Naseerabad vide survey Nos.172, 175/1 and 180 (hereinafter "the land in dispute"), from which National Highway Road passes; besides, old water channel which is adjacent at southern side of the road, also passes from the land in dispute; the respondent No.1 was unlawfully interfering in the land in dispute in order to deprive the petitioner from his lawful possession, hence the suit.
3. In rebuttal, the respondents contested the suit on legal and factual grounds by filing their separate written statements. During the proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
4. The petitioners contested the application by way of filing rejoinder. The trial Court after hearing the arguments pro and contra, allowed the application and rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide impugned order and decree dated 12.03.2021.
5. The petitioner feeling disgruntled, assailed the order and decree dated 17.03.2021 in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2021 before the appellate Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2021, hence, this Revision Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court misinterpreted the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and passed the impugned order and decree without considering the documents annexed with the plaint; the Courts below have violated the procedure provided under the law in the C.P.C.; the claim of ownership of the petitioner can only be ascertained after adducing evidence at the trial; the plaint also contained the clause of cause of action, but the Courts below have not dilated upon the controversy between the parties while delivering the impugned order/judgment and decrees, as such, the same are not legally sustainable and liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 assisted by the learned Assistant Advocate General, controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has no locus standi under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; the trial Court after taking into consideration the pleadings and appended documents, has rightly decided the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.; no illegality or irregularity have been committed by the Courts below, as such, the same are immune from an interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the available record with their able assistance.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that he was recorded owner and in possession of the land in dispute; National Highway Authorities (NHA) had constructed the road while a watercourse towards the northern side of the NHA existed. The revenue extracts appended with the plaint show ownership of the petitioner in column No. II of Khasra No. 105. Suffice to note here that the official respondents did not dispute ownership of the petitioner in the record of rights.
10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate and advantageous to reproduce the relevant provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 and Order XIV, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.; which read as under:
11. Rejection of 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 a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) 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;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of Rule 9.
Order XIV, Rule 1, C.P.C.: Framing of issues...
1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.
2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue, 4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law.
5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statement, if any, and after such examination of the parties as may appear necessary, assertion upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.
6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence.
11. Mere reading of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), C.P.C. demonstrates the phrase "cause of action", which has been defined in the case of Pakistan Oil Company Limited v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., PLD 1991 Karachi 365, which reads as follows:- "The phrase 'cause of action' has been defined to mean a bundle of fact giving rise to a right which the plaintiff will have to prove if traversed by the defendant".
12. Perusal of contents of the plaint manifests that the petitioner disclosed a cause of action clause, which is apparent in pars No.5 of the plaint, as such, the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), C.P.C. would not attract in the instant case.
13. Moreover, the documents appended with the plaint reflect that the petitioner is the recorded owner of the land in dispute and the burden is upon the petitioner to substantiate his legal character and right enshrined under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 by adducing evidence at the trial Court which is not a purely legal question, thus, the Courts below have erred in law while not dilating upon this aspect. Furthermore, Order XIV, Rule 1, C.P.C., demonstrates that it is a prime obligation of the trial Court to frame issues of law and facts after receiving the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter decide the legal issue at first instance under Sub-Rule (2) of Order XIV, C.P.C, but the trial Court has not followed the mandatory provisions of the C.P.C., thus committed illegality and irregularity.
14. Perusal of the impugned order/judgment and decrees of the Courts below, depict that the Courts below have misinterpreted the provision of Order VII, Rule 11(a), C.P.C., which is a procedural provision. The trial Court has not followed the procedure provided under the C.P.C. while delivering the impugned order and decree in a cursory and mechanical manner, thus the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance in this regard is placed in the case of Mst. Iqbal Begum v.
Farooq Inayat and others (PLD 1993 Lahore 183), wherein it has been held as under:
13. To start with, it must be kept in mind, first, that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 are procedural provisions and secondly that on the principle that the first and the best source from which to ascertain the meaning of any statue is the status itself, the Code of Civil Procedure must be read as a whole, that is to say, those provisions must not be read in isolation, and if intrinsic aid is afforded in their interpretation by other provisions of the Code, that aid must be made use of.
For the above reasons, Civil Revision (S) No. 63 of 2021 is allowed, consequently, the order and decree dated 17th March, 2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I/Civil Judge, Dera Allah Yar and the judgment and decree dated 28th May, 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dera Allah Yar are hereby set aside. Civil Suit No.53 of 2020 and the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are deemed pending. The trial Court is directed to frame issues of law and facts in view of the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.