' This appeal is directed against order, dated 9-7-1984 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore rejecting a plaint in suit filed under section 65 of the Copy Rights Ordinance, 1962, under Order VII, rule, 11 C.P.C. for disclosing no cause of action.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal briefly: stated are that Messrs Paramount Pictures of whom late Mian Muhammad Shafi was the sole proprietor produced a feature film 35 MM titled "Naukar" (Urdu) somewhere in the year 1959. The said film was approved for public exhibition by the film Censor Board. It is stated in the plaint that on 1-7-1981, late Mian Muhammad Shafi, a sole proprietor of Messrs Paramount Pictures through an agreement assigned/transferred the sole and exclusive right for exhibition, exploitation and distribution in respect of the aforenoted Cinematographic work in favour of the present plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has produced a feature film "Raja Rani" which according to the plaintiff was a copy of the plaintiff's film "Naukar". Theme, idea, scenario of film "Naukar", allegedly, through an act of literary theft, has been copiously utilized in film "Raja Rani". This act infringed and offended the plaintiff's right in the cinemato graphic work "Naukar". Having come to know of this act of plagiarism, the plaintiff instituted above-noted civil suit. Alongwith the plaint, a application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for an interim relief restraining the defendants from selling, hiring or by way of trade displaying or offering for sale and hire, infringing copies of the petitioner's aforementioned cinematographic work etc. was also moved by the plaintiff. Defendants filed a written reply to the latter application. Written statement has not so far been filed. The learned Additional District Judge through a fairly detailed and lengthy order, examined the merits and while disallowing interim relief, rejected the plaint also under Order VII, rule 11 on 9-7-1984. Correctness of order rejecting the plaint in such circumstances has been questioned by the plaintiff/ appellant in appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Saif-ud-Din Chughtai, Advocate for respondents who entered appearence in response to a pre-admission notice from the Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally and in disregard of the provisions of Order VII, rule 11(a), C.P.C. in rejecting the plaint on the sole ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. He stated that, for rejecting a plaint, the allegations/averments in the plaint alone have to be looked into and it is not permissible for the Court to travel beyond the four-corners of the plaint including the defence set up by the opposite party or the documents produced. If all the allegations contained in the plaint are accepted in mode and form and even then the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in the light of prevailing law, then and then alone the plaint can be rejected. In the case under consideration, it was contended that the plaint did disclose cause of action. It would be a different matter whether the plaintiff would succeed to establish it at trial. In case he failed, the suit then would be dismissed. In any case, the plaintiff was entitled to an opportunity to substantiate the averments made in the plaint. The facts disclosed in the plaint merited considera tion and the Court could not reject the plaint without framing issues and recording evidence. As regards interim releif, the matter rested in the discretion of the Court. Denial of interim relief ipso facto did not provide a legal justification for ordering rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the order and submitted that on documents produced and law applicable, the plaintiff had no case and the plaint has been rightly rejected by learned Additional District Judge. He stated that the Court was possessed of inherent jurisdiction to examine and scrutinize the contents of the plaint for finding out whether the case as presented is worthwhile trial and if in the scrutiny the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no serious case to present, the plaint could be rejected and the matter buried in its inception without further waste of time and expense.
5. Learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the matter at some length and had I not thought that he had seriously erred on a matter of principle, I would have hesitated to interfere. 'However, on examination of the order made by learned Additional District Judge rejecting the plaint, I feel that he acted rather in haste in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. By now it is too well-settled law to be reiterated that while rejecting a plaint, reference can only and only be made to the averments in the plaint and no other material including the defence set up by the defendant can be brought under consideration for finding whether the plaint has a cause of action to present.
Whether the plaintiff would succeed at trial or not or be able to substantiate his allegations made in the plaint at trial are wholly irrelevant consideration for applying provisions of Order VII, rule 11(a), C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint on account of non-disclosure of cause of action. It is in these circumstances that I find the order of learned Additional District Judge defective. The reading of the plaint did disclose cause of action It would have been a far better exercise of jurisdiction if the Court had proceeded to try civil suit on merits after framing necessary issues and affording necessary opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands.
Rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint vide Order VII, rule 13, C.P.C. whereas a dismissal on merits operates as res judicata and consequently bars the institution of a fresh suit on the same cause. The order rejecting plaint under Order VII, rule 11(a), C.P.C. is open to serious legal exception. Unless the case falls strictly within the ambit of Order VII, rule 11(a), C.P.C. the plaint cannot be rejected and the suit buried in its inception. The general policy of the law is E that the civil suits be decided on merits in accordance with the procedure laid down for their trial in the Code of Civil Procedure after framing B necesasry issues and affording an opportunity to the parties to lead necessary evidence. Order VII, rule 11(a), C.P.C. provides an exception to this general rule and unless the case comes strictly within this rule F the plaint cannot be rejected. In the case under consideration, I feel that the order rejecting the plaint was not a proper exercise of juris diction by the learned trial Court. I have purposely refrained from expressing myself on merits lest it may prejudice the rights of either party before the trial Judge.
6. In the light of what has been stated above, appeal is accepted, order dated 9-7-1984 is set aside, the suit is remanded to the learned District Judge, Lahore for trial afresh who will also pass a fresh order on application moved under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge for further proceedings on 20-10-1984. Copy of the order be transmitted to the learned District Judge without any delay.