SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J.- The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge / Izafi Zilla Qazi-III, Swat who by virtue of impugned judgment / order, set aside the judgment dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Swat whereby the plaint of the respondent / plaintiff have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.
2. The fundamental facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,24,000/-against the petitioners (defendants No. 1 to 4) alongwith damages amounting to Rs. Two crores and Rs. 35,000/- as call deposit. The claim arose out of construction work 'for an Operation Theatre' originally assigned by defendant No. 5 (the principal contractor) to the plaintiff through an authority letter dated 09.03.2011. Upon partial execution of the work, a cheque was issued by the petitioner No. 3 towards payment, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff, having approached the provincial Ombudsperson, obtained an order dated 14.05.2018 directing payment, however, the amount remained unpaid.
3. The petitioners contested the suit and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, asserting that no cause of action was disclosed against them, that no privity of contract existed with plaintiff and that they were unnecessarily impleaded in proceedings. The learned trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. However, the appellate court, in exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, reversed the said decision, observing that the issue raised necessitated determination through evidence at trial and could not be summarily disposed of under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. This Court is of the considered view that the order of the learned appellate Court is not only legally correct but also in consonance with settled principles governing the exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. It is now trite law, 'as consistently held in authoritative pronouncements of Apex Supreme Court that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, if it does not disclose any cause of action on its face, and as such defect must be discernible solely from plain reading of the plaint itself, without reference to the defence taken by the defendants. Reliance is placed in case titled `Jewan and 7 Others Vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 Others reported as 1994 SCMR 826 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: "The rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is contemplated at a stage when the Court has not recorded any evidence in the suit. It is for this reason precisely, that the law permits consideration of only averments made in the plaint for the purpose of deciding whether the plaint should be rejected or not for failure to disclose cause of action or the suit being barred under some provision of law. The Court while taking action for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. cannot take into consideration pleas raised by the defendant in the suit in "his defence as at that stage the pleas raised by the defendants are only contentions in the proceedings unsupported by any evidence on record. However, if there is some other material before the Court apart from the plaint at that stage which is admitted by the plaintiff, the same can also be looked into and taken into consideration by the Court while rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C: Beyond that the Court would not be entitled to take into consideration any other material produced on record unless the same is brought on record in accordance with the rules of evidence."
Similarly in case titled Saleem Malik Vs Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) And 2 Others' reported as PLD 2008 Supreme Court 650 alike principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: "Subject to the certain exception to the general principle, the plaint in the suit cannot be rejected on the basis of defence plea or material supplied by the opposite party with the written statement. This is settled law that in case of controversial questions of fact or law, the provision of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. cannot be invoked rather the proper course for the Court in such cases is to frame issue on such question and decide the same on merits in the light of evidence in accordance with law. The rejection of plaint on technical grounds would amount to deprive a person from his legitimate right of availing the legal remedy for undoing the wrong done in respect of his legitimate right, therefore, the Court may, in exceptional cases, consider the legal objection in the light of averment of the written statement but the pleading as a whole cannot be taken into consideration for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C."
Like-wise in case titled 'Ahmed Ali Talpur Vs Sub-Registrar Latifabad, Hyderabad and Others' reported as PLD 2025 Supreme Court 302 and case titled 'President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Head Office, Islamabad Vs Kishwar Khan and Others' reported as 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1341 a similar guiding principle has been laid down for the courts which is reproduced herein below: "Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. enlightens and expounds rejection of plaint if it appears from the averments articulated in the plaint to be barred by any law or discloses no cause of action--- Court is under obligation to give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint---With the aim of deciding whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the court has to perceive and grasp the averments made in the plaint and the accompanying documents---In case of any mix question of law and facts, the right methodology and approach is to let the suit proceed to written statement and discovery and determine the matter either on framing preliminary issues or regular trial---Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of the plaint or in piecemeal as the concept of partial rejection is seemingly incongruous to the said provision."
6. The contention that the petitioners were not contractually bound to the plaintiff is a matter requiring factual determination. The authority letter dated 09.03.2011 issued by the principal contractor (defendant No. 5) in favour of the plaintiff, as well as the issuance of a cheque by the petitioner No. 3, prima facie suggests a transactional relationship between the parties. Whether the petitioners are liable or not is a question to be decided upon framing of issues and appreciation of evidence and not one that could be summarily adjudicated at the preliminary stage under the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
7. It is equally important to emphasize that the distinction between "No cause of action" and "non- disclosure of cause of action" is not merely semantic but jurisdictionally decisive. The former is a matter of defence to be adjudicated at trial whereas the latter, if present on the face of the plaint, alone warrants rejection. The learned trial court erroneously conflated these two concepts and passed an order that failed to meet the legal threshold required for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
8. The jurisprudential approach consistently adopted by the Superior Courts of Pakistan delineates that power conferred upon a civil court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is extraordinary in nature and circumscribed in scope, to be invoked only in those instances where the plaint, on its plain reading, ex-facie fails to disclose a cause of action. The assessment for such rejection must be confined strictly to the averments contained within the four corners of the plaint, recourse to the written statement, annexures or any extraneous material is impermissible. If upon a meaningful and holistic reading of plaint, a cause of action however tenuous, arguable or prima facie unsubstantiated emerges, the plaint cannot be summarily rejected. The courts are duty bound to afford the litigant an opportunity for adjudication on merits where the dispute present a triable issue necessitating judicial determination. Moreover, the Superior Courts have drawn a clear doctrinal distinction between the absence of a cause of action and non-disclosure of a cause of action. The former is a matter of factual defence, typically raised in pleadings, which demands resolution upon evidentiary appraisal at trial while the latter, however, pertains to a legal deficiency apparent on the face of the plaint itself. It is a cardinal principal that such factual assertions by defendants, including denials of contractual relationships or assertions of being unnecessary parties, do not ipso facto justify the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The invocation of this provision must be exercised with judicial circumspection and only in clear cut cases where the plaint is manifestly devoid of legal foundation. Premature termination of proceedings at the threshold stage, absent such manifest defect, not only offends the principles of natural justice but also undermines the plaintiff's vested right to have claim adjudicated upon its merits through due process of law.
9. No patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that would justify interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. It is a cardinal principle of revisional jurisprudence that where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law and upon sound reasoning, interference by revisional court is neither warranted nor permissible.
10. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The matter shall proceed before the learned trial court for adjudication strictly on merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment.