' GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.--Appellants are plaintiffs, in the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a commercial plot bearing Survey No,94-W, situate in Blue Area, Islamabad. Plot was owned by Mercantile Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, defendant No,1, in the suit which agreed to sell it to plaintiffs, at sale price of Rs,1,40,88,605. On three dates, amount totalling to Rs,35,00,000 was paid to the defendant No,1, towards the sale price of the plot. The balance sale price was agreed to be paid, in instalments on three different dates. Defendant No,1 sent a signed draft sale- deed to the plaintiffs containing the time schedule for the payment of balance sale price. In return, plaintiffs controverted the time schedule fixed for payment of instalments and stated that the draft sale-deed did not correctly conform to the time schedule as was agreed between the parties. As there existed a serious dispute between the parties in regard to the payment of balance sale price which prevented formal transfer of the plot in question, plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement against defendant No,1 and the Capital Development Authority, Islamabad. Defendants contested the suit. In a detailed written statement, defendant No,1 pleaded that as there was no concluded contract between the parties for sale of the plot in dispute, plaint disclosed no cause of action and it merited rejection under Order VII rule 11 C.P.C.
Facts constituting cause of action given in the plaint were also controverted. C.D.A. Took up the stand that plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit and the suit against them was also barred under section 49-E of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. On 22-5-1988, the learned trial Judge took the view that since there did not exist completed agreement for the sale of the plot in question between the parties, the suit for specific performance could not be filed and consequent upon this finding rejected the plaint. Against this order, plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
2. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in the facts and circumstances, when there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the essential terms of the sale agreement, trial Court was not justified to reject the plaint for failing to disclose cause of action, under Order VII rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code. In this behalf, learned counsel referred to number of decisions. As against this, Malik Muhammad Nawaz, learned Advocate for respondent No,1 submitted that even on the facts stated in the plaint, it was not shown that the parties had a "concluded contract" of sale between them. It was further submitted that Order VII rule 11, C.P.C. Gives four instances for rejection of the plaint but these cannot be regarded as exhaustive of all the cases in which a Court can reject a plaint. Precise argument of the learned counsel was that Order VII rule 11, C.P.C. Does not limit the inherent powers of the Court in this respect.
' After hearing learned counsel for rival parties at quite some length and examination of the original records, we are of the clear opinion that the order rejecting the plaint cannot be sustained. It is not denied that a sum of Rs,35,00,000, which by any means is not a small amount was paid to the defendant No,1 towards the sale price of the plot in question. In regard to the payment of the balance sale price parties had agreed or a time schedule. Plaintiffs' case was that the time schedule given in the draft agreement by defendant No,1 did not correctly correspond with the time schedule orally agreed upon between the parties and the one given by the plaintiffs in reply to the draft agreement was the only agreed time schedule. From the above, it is evident that parties were at variance as to the essential terms of the sale agreement and the time schedule for payment of the balance sale price. Therefore, without settlement of proper issues and recording of required evidence, it could not be said which of the versions set forth was correct, whether that set up in the plaint was true or that stated in the defence was a correct version of the events. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action under Order VII rule 11(a)
C.P.C. It should travel within the four corners of the plaint and nothing else. Neither the defence set up nor the documents annexed thereto could legitimately be looked into. For failing to disclose cause of action, plaint can be rejected only, if the allegations given in the plaint even if taken to be true modo et forma-- in the manner and form, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
When the above test is applied to the facts involved in the present litigation we see no difficulty in saying that contents of the plaint read as a whole disclosed triable issues and the treatment given to the plaint by the learned Civil Judge was not well deserved. Dispute between the parties related to a very valuable piece of property and whether there was a 'concluded contract' for the sale between the parties could not have been resolved without proper trial i.e, settlement of proper issues and recording of evidence and this is what we propose to hold in this appeal.
3. In view of the aforesaid, appeal is allowed, order dated 22-5-1988 of learned Civil Judge Islamabad, rejecting the plaint is set aside and the suit is remanded to learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this appeal.
4. Records be returned. Parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on 29-3-1989.
Parties to the suit request for an early decision in the suit. Having regard to the value of the property and the stakes involved, we have entertained the request for early decision and direct the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing and conclude the trial before 31-10-1989, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court (Rawalpindi Bench). In order to abide by the time schedule given above, learned trial Judge shall endeavour to avoid unnecessary adjournments.