SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether in view of the very positive findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment, dated 25-8-1987, it was justified in maintaining the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The appellant had filed a suit application dated 31-12-1980 claiming non--compliance with an agreement, dated 4-11-1915 given approval by the decision of the District Magistrate/Political Agent, dated 1-2-1916. A factual enquiry was got conducted through the Tehsildar where violation of the compromise was found as a fact. The respondents, however, denied it on technical as well as on factual grounds and also objected to the locus standi of the appellant. The matter was referred for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Baluchistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application)
Regulation, 1976 by framing certain issues. The Qazi seized of the matter decreed the suit on 23-10- 1982 but the Majlis-e-Shoora accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for framing other issues and for re-deciding the matter. The trial Court did not comply with the remand order. Evidence was led at the trial and after considering the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 28-7-1986 on merits and on limitation. An appeal was preferred which was also dismissed on 21-4-1987. By a revision, the decisions were challenged. The High Court made the following observations:----- "It would be pertinent to examine here that plaint/application already reproduced above apparently does not disclose cause of action. More--over it is unambiguously admitted that respondents have constructed permanent Mina Jats, allegedly causing heavy damage to their cultivated area. Similarly through these proceedings petitioner has merely sought securities for implementation of old compromise within the purview of order 38, Rule 2, C.P.C. Without demanding removal of Mina Jats. Apparently requirements of plaint as regards cause of action, court-fee, particular details of property for which prohibition is claimed or area from which injunction from construction of permanent Mina Jats is sought has not been properly specified nor does it appropriately disclose cause of action, besides, subject-matter is also not described on account of which even otherwise same merits rejection. It is well-settled that mere filing of an incompetent plaint does not constitute institution of suit. If authority is needed reference may be had to the observation in case Sher Muhammad and 2 others v. Aroora 1984 CLC 3292.
It may be observed that if the plaint is vague and does not disclose any cause of action and its frame is apparently defective and subject-matter is not specified in that event same can be rejected at any stage of proceedings, therefore, taking into consideration all these relevant factors there appears to be no bar in declaring that plaint/application initially instituted by petitioner was not competent and all the proceedings drawn on the basis thereof have no legal consequence. It may also be clarified that observations of two Courts below regarding question of limitation are not warranted because admittedly no issue to that effect was framed."
3. The vagueness of the plaint, of the relief claimed, the deficiency in the court-fee, the defective form of suit, the repugnancy of the compromise to the Islamic principles and the question of limitation are all questions which arise only when there is a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, all these subsequent questions do not arise. The test of cause of action is that if what the plaintiff states is taken to be correct does it entitle him to a relief or not in law. In the case in hand the appellant clearly claimed that he had entered into a valid compromise, that the respondents were party to it or bound by it, that both the parties were bound by it and that the rights of the appellant under the compromise were being violated. This would afford a cause of action to the plaintiff and it would only be on merits that he could be defeated. If it is held that the claim is not within time, the parties were not parties to the compromise, the compromise is not in accordance with the law applicable to the parties, then it is a decision on merits which must take place in proper form. If there was found any defect in the frame of the suit or deficiency in court-fee, then an opportunity had to be allowed to the party to correct that defect and to remove the deficiency.
4. In the circumstances, we find that the finding of the High Court that no cause of action is made out from the plaint is unsustainable on the test indicated. Hence, the appeal is accepted, that part of the finding is set aside and the matter is remitted to High Court for a decision afresh on other aspects of the case. No order is made as to costs.