This civil revision calls in question the order of remand passed on 27th of June, 1988 by District Judge, Gujranwala reversing the order of the Civil Court dated 14th of September, 1987 rejecting the plaint in a suit filed by the respondents.
2. The brief facts are that on 26th of July 1981, Imam Din and Allah Ditta respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree and the judgment dated 2nd of April, 1980 as amended on 26th of April, 1980 passed by the Court of Kh. Aurangzeb, Civil Judge Ist Class, in a civil suit, was illegal, unlawful, void, ab initio and ineffective against their rights and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the suit decree. The grounds on which this decree was challenged as given in the plaint, were fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the present petitioners Bashir and Muhammad Shafi.
3. This suit was resisted by the respondents by filing a written statement in which it was inter alia objected to that it was not maintainable being barred and the Court had no jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties, the learner: trial Court framed 11 issues on which the evidence of the respondents was recorded. But the petitioners instead of leading any evidence, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And section 151, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint which was accepted on 14-9-1987 and the plaint was rejected under Order VII,
4. Aggrieved by this order, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 27th of June, 1988. It was held that as the trial Court had already framed issues in the suit, it should not have rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the District Judge is not sustainable as the suit on the face of it was barred by section 12(2) of the C.P.C. And the trial Court was correct in rejecting the plaint. It was argued that the trial Court was not required to postpone the decision of this question till the judgment on issues.
6. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Require that the plaint shall be rejected in a case where from the statement in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by any law. For this limited purpose, no factual inquiry is either required or permissible and the facts stated m the plaint have to be presumed to be correct. If on the facts stated in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law, it is the obligation of the Court to reject the plaint without any further proceedings. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Are mandatory in character and enjoin upon the Court to proceed under the said rule, once conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. In Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation etc. v. Devachand Muljimal and others PLD 1968 Kar.107, it was held that the Court is bound to reject the plaint, if any of four defects mentioned in rule 11, comes to its notice, irrespective of whether such a plea has been raised or not in the written statement. Similarly in Muhammad Shafi v. Punjab Province through Collector, Vehari and another 1982 CLC 55, it was observed that:-- ".... Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Confers wide powers on the Court to reject the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. Indeed, if on examination of the plaint the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by some provisions of law, it is not only proper rather it is the statutory duty of the Court to reject the plaint. . . "
1979 CLC 742), the contention-that a plaint cannot be rejected after filing the written statement, was repelled. Similarly in Lt.-Col. M. Ahsanul Haq v. Sh. Manzoor-ul---Haq and 2 others PLD 1979 Note 120 p.90, it was observed that the Court was competent to reject the plaint even suo motu even before the filing of the written statement. It thus becomes clear that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Are emphatic and the Court is not only entitled but is bound to reject the plaint without holding any further proceedings and at any stage of the suit once its attention is drawn to the fact that even on the basis of the statement made in the plaint, suit was barred by any law.
7. In the present case, the trial Court had categorically found that since the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint had challenged the validity of the decree passed by a Civil Court, the suit was barred by section 12(2) of the C.P.C. The learned District Judge did not record any clear finding on this important aspect of the case but mainly set aside the older impugned before him on the ground that as the issues, had been framed, the plaint should not have been rejected. Neither the framing of issues nor the fact that the respondents had already led evidence, were of any importance in the context of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The District Judge should have focussed his attention on all important question as to whether or not the suit was barred by section 12(2) and given a categorical finding in this respect.
For the foregoing reasons this revision petition is accepted, the order of remand dated 27-6-1988 is set aside and the appeal of the respondents is remanded to the District Judge for its decision, in accordance with law.