Through this single judgment I intend to dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.440/2001, 441/2001, 442/2001, 443/2001, 444/2001, 445/2001, 446/2001 and 447/2001 as all these are connected civil revisions and common question of law and facts is involved therein. The petitioners have called in question the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 11-7- 2001 passed by learned Izafi Zilla Qazi/Additional District Judge, Dir Bala, Camp Court Wari whereby the appeals of the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2000 passed by Illaqa Qazi Wari were accepted and the cases were remanded to the lower Court for decision on merits.
2. The epitomized sketch of the relevant facts constituting the background of the instant case is that the respondents filed civil suits against the petitioners for declaration, permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession as' well. The declaration was sought to the effect that the lands of disputed shops highlighted with red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaints situated in Bazar Alchgram are the purchased properties of the plaintiffs-respondents on the basis of different sale-deeds having been purchased from defendant NO\ 5 and that the petitioners have no right therein. The suits of the plaintiffs-respondents were rejected under Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Vide judgment dated 28-5-1998 which was challenged in Appeals Nos.19, 22 and 23 of 1998 before the concerned District Judge. The appeals were accepted on 8-9-1999 and the cases were remanded with the directions that these should be decided according to law on merits. After the remand, the learned trial Court on the application of the petitioners appointed two learned advocates as Local Commissioners to verify the fact whether the subject-matter of the suits is existing on the spot or not as according to the claim of the petitioners/applicants/defendants the suit property had come under the road. After receipt of the report of the Local Commissioners, the learned trial Court invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Again rejected the plaints vide its order dated 22-11-2000. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22-11-2000 was challenged by way of appeals before the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Dir Bala who vide his detailed judgment dated 11-7-2001 accepted the appeals and remanded the cases to the learned trial Court that the suits be decided on merits after recording the evidence. The said appellate judgment is impugned before this Court.
3. The proceedings and report of the Local Commissioners are patently tainted with various legal and factual infirmities but I need not enumerate the same as the rejection of the plaint proceeds on legal premises envisaged by provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Which is reproduced below:- "Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C.
11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
4. A plain reading of clause (a) ibidem spells out the intention of the Legislature as the word "it" is highly significant for the purpose of deciding the fate of a plaint with reference to its rejection. By using the word "it" the Legislature has particularized the plaint only and this particularization excludes every other thing. In other words, the word "it" confines the scope of reference only to the plaint and nothing else. In order to invoke the applicability of this clause the Court shall look into the contents of the plaint only and shall examine the plaint on its face value. If the plaint by itself indicates any infirmity enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Then the Court shall order the rejection of the plaint as the fruitless litigation requires to be buried at its inception to avoid the wastage of time of Courts and unnecessary harassment of the opposite-party.
5. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of determining whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the Court has to presume that every allegation made in the plaint was true. It thus follows that resort to the power of rejecting a plaint be made only if the Court comes to the irresistible conclusion, within the parameters of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., that even if all allegations made in the plaint were proved, plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. If the averments contained in a written statement, being rival pleadings, engenders any controversy then it becomes an issue between the parties which can only be resolved after recording and evaluating the evidence of the combating parties adduced at the trial. Thus the defendant having filed a written statement and pleas raised by him in the nature of defence in suit cannot be looked into while considering application for rejection of the plaint. Wisdom and guidance is sought from the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in case of Haji Allah Bakhsh v.
Abdul Reitman and others (1995 SCMR 459) wherefrom the relevant observations are given as follows:-- "The above contention seems to be devoid of any force.. In order to press into service the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the averments contained in the plaint are to be presumed to be correct. On the above assumption the plaint is to be examined and if the case falls under any of the clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected."
6. In a case decided by Karachi High Court and reported in 1988 CLC 1207 captioned as. Abdur Rahim v. Karachi Development Authority it was observed thus:-- "From reading of orders of the two Courts below, it is quite clear that the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Is based on the pleas raised by the respondents in their application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. And the material supplied alongwith the counter-affidavit filed by them in reply to the applicant's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. It is well-settled law that the Court while rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Can do only if the plaint appeared to be barred under some law on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. The Court could not reject the plaint on the basis of pleas raised by the defendant in his defence or in the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C."
7. Another judgment relevant to the point under discussion is delivered by Lahore High Court reported in PLD 1983 Lahore 278 titled Alam Ali and another v. District Judge, Multan and 3 others wherefrom the relevant portion is in the following diction:-- "8. As far contention No,2 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is now well-settled that for the rejection of the plaint, the Court has to see the statements made in the plaint itself and cannot go beyond that. It is equally true as submitted by the learned counsel that if the law on the subject belies the averments of the plaint, the same may be applied for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C."
8. In the instant cases, as is apparent from the judgment of the Appellate Court, the written statements were filed. The issues generated by the rival pleadings have been framed, the lists of witnesses have also been filed and the cases were posted for the evidence of the plaintiffs- respondents. In such circumstances the invocation of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. Was totally uncalled for. The plaints of the plaintiffs-respondents if looked at very critically do not give even a remote sense that the plaints fail to disclose any cause of action.
9. In the above detailed legal and factual scenario I have deeply examined the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi Dir Bala dated 11-7-2001 which having been proceeded on the correct premises of law and facts does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. These revision petitions being devoid of force are consequently dismissed in limine alongwith C.Ms.