' ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.-- The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the order of rejection of plaint of the appellant's suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs.55,00,000 passed by the learned Civil, Judge, Lahore, on the 1st April, 1982, may be shortly stated.
In 1972 the petitioner obtained loan of Deutch Mark 1,75,265 from the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, respondent 1, for the purpose of importing from West Germany two units of printing machines. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, respondent 2, gave guarantee for repayment of the loan.
The printing machinery was pledged with respondent 1. For the appellant's failure to liquidate debt, respondent 1 moved the learned District Judge, Lahore, under section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961, and secured an order for attachment of the Printing machinery. In the course of attachment proceedings, the premises, where the machinery was installed, were broken open and sealed. Proceedings touching attachment of the machinery between the parties continued for quite some time before the learned District Court. The appellant's grievance was that those proceedings were the result of conspiracy and collusion between the respondents and their actions were malicious, vindictive and mala fide. The damage which the appellant alleged he suffered in consequence of the respondents' acts was estimated in material terms to the tune of Rs.55,00,000 for recovery whereof he brought the suit. The learned trial Court formed the view that the proceedings took place according to the orders passed by the Court and, therefore, the suit was not competent. Accordingly it rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had yet to prove that the respondents had acted maliciously in causing the building, where the machinery was installed, broken open and sealed in excess of the legal authority and that the Court could pass verdict on the merits of his case only if he had adduced evidence to establish it. He maintained that his averments in the plaint, if accepted to be true, constituted good cause of action demanding regular trial of the suit and did not deserve to be summarily thrown overboard. He pointed out that initially the warrant for attachment of property did not provide for taking physical possession of the property or giving it on sapurdari and that no order of sealing the premises housing the machinery had ever been passed. In support of his arguments he cited Abdul Raful v. Abdul Hamid Khan PLD 1965 SC 671, S.M. Ayub v. Syed Yusaf Shah PLD 1967 SC 486, Seven Stars Goods Transport Co (Registered) Karachi v. The Administrator, Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi PLD 1976 Kar. 21 and Ramanathan Chetty v. Mira Saibo Marikar AIR 1931 PC 28, some of which are not exactly in point.
3. A plain reading of the plaint leaves no room for doubt that it discloses cause of action inasmuch as the appellant is alleging the actions of the respondents to be malicious, vindictive, mala fide and in excess of lawful authority and has claimed damages which he states he has suffered as a result of such actions. The respondents have given a lie to the appellant's assertions. The true nature of the respondents' action can be determined after evidence of the parties in support of, their respective cases has been lead. Right decision can be reached only after the suit has been properly tried. In the circumstances the learned trial Court was not justified straightaway to throw out the suit by rejecting the plaint without holding factual inquiry. The appeal is accordingly accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision according to law. The parties have been directed to appear before that Court on the 15th February, 1987. The parties will bear their own costs.