ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.- This revision application is directed against the orders passed by the VIth Senior Civil judge, Karachi in Suit No. 1240 of 1992 whereby he rejected the applications moved by the present petitioner under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C, In the said applications the main grounds taken by the preset petitioner are that the said suit was not valued properly as the suit falls under section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Pees Act and ail valorem Court fee should have been pa d, The second ground taken wus that in.: present petitioner is not the owner of the disputed premises nor he is raising me construction thereon and, therefore, the suit against hint is not maintainable. Tile order of the trial Court shows that these two points have been taken into consideration in an order passed curlier on 28-111*1992. Mr. Latif Shukoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner slates that the, order has been challenged in appeal and that appeal is still pending. He has further urged (hat under Order VII rule H C.P.C, the Court can mo motu lake into consideration the merits of the ease and reject the plaint if so warranted under the provision s of Order VII rule II C.P.C., lie has placed reliance on the case of MST.KULSOOM (FATIMA) vs WAZIR ALI & 13 OTHERS (1991 M.L.D. 1810) wherein it is lard down as under: "It is settled law that in case ol dealing with an application under Order VII rule II CPC it is the plaint and its accompaniments only which are to be taken into consideration and if from these documents, the suit appears to be barred bylaw or the plaint does not disclose any cause of action than the plaint is to be rejected This provision, however, is not exhaustive. The principle under-lying this provision is that a still born suit is to Ire buried at this very inception. It may further be observed that the provision of Order VII rule 11 CPC contemplate that no further lime be consumed on a fruitless litigation and also that it gives plaintiff a chance to retrace his steps at the earliest possible moments, so that, if permissible under law, he may file a properly constituted suit,"
2. There is no cavil about the above said provision of law. However, the position in the present case is different from the one in the above case. In the present case the two pleas raised by the petitioner in this revision application were also raised before the trial Court who had the jurisdiction to lake into consideration the same suo moto and both these pleas were declined. The matter is sub judice in 'appeal before the lower appellate forum. Passing any order in the present revision application would amount to pre-emptings the pending appeal. It will however be open for the petitioner to raise the same pointy before the learned appellate Court where the appeal is pending as he can exercise the same powers as that of trial Court and even suo moto direct the rejection of plaint in case it falls within the purview of any of-the four dauses of Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. With these observations, the present revision application is dismissed summarily alongwith C.M.A. No. 1132/93.