' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN: J.---The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25-3-1991 in respect of sale of land measuring 383 Canals, 15 Marla's, recovery of the balance sale price/damages and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants before the learned Civil Judge, Murree. An application was made on behalf of respondent No,1 (defendant society) for rejection of the plaint under-Order VII, rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia on the grounds that requisite court-fee was not paid, the suit was barred by time and that the petitioner/plaintiff himself violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 1-12-1993 holding that the plaintiff did affix the requisite court-fee valuing Rs,15,000. As to the other objections, it was held that the same could not be considered without recording evidence. Being aggrieved with this order, the respondent society filed revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned judgment with the observation that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., as it did not disclose any cause of action against the respondent society and also for the reason that it was bad for multifariousness.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's suit did not suffer from multifariousness of causes of action, in that, the respondent society could have been sued for specific performance, recovery of the balance sale price and permanent injunction in the peculiar facts and circumstances 'of the present case. It was further argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the view taken by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., was based on cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality, therefore, not open to challenge in provisional proceedings before the High Court.
3. Leave is granted to consider the above questions. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the nature of the suit land shall not be altered during the pendency of the appeal.