MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ J.--- Records have been received and perused, with the assistance of the learned counsel.
2. On 16.3.1991, the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit land mentioned in para 6 of the plaint, was owned by Habib Ullah who is dead and the pedigree has been drawn-up in para 3 of the plaint; that after the death of Habib Ullah the mutation of inheritance was not entered .Or attested and that they have been calling upon the respondents to get the entries in the revenue record corrected in accordance with Muslim Law with regard to shares of the parties in the estate of the said Habib Ullah but they have refused. With these averments, a declaration was sought that the entries in the revenue records are wrong and prayer was made for joint possession for 4/7 shares in the suit land. In the written statement the respondents stated that in a suit filed by Allah Rakha, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 against the said Habib Ullah, the latter admitted Allah Rakha to be owner of the land being his transferee and a decree was passed on 2.5.1973. It was also explained that one of the petitioners in the life-time of Habib Ullah filed a suit challenging the transfer of .Habib Ullah in favour of Allah Rakha but then withdrew it. Thereafter the suit under custom was filed which was dismissed. Yet another suit was filed in the year 1984 for possession of the land which was withdrawn. In this background prayer was made that the plaint be rejected. The matter was taken- up by the learned Trial Court who vide an order dated 31.3.1993 rejected the plaint. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Addl. District Judge Daska, District Sialkot on 16.11.2000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction inasmuch as for the purpose of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The only document that was to be looked into was plaint and since the impugned order finds reference to some other earlier litigation and decisions, the same is not sustainable.
4. There can probably be no cavil to the proposition being stated by the learned counsel. However, in this particular case, upon an examination of the record I find that a decree regarding this very land was passed in favour of Allah Rakhah against the said Habib Ullah on 2.5.1973. (i.e. More than 17 years before the filing of the present suit). The petitioners thus proceeded to state in the plaint dated 10.1.1984 that they called upon their father Habib Ullah to hand over their share in the land to them when Habib Ullah informed them that he had already transferred the land to Allah Rakha by means of a decree; that they made enquiries and confirmed that, in fact, a decree was passed in favour of Allah Rakha against Habib Ullah on 2.5.1973 whereby the decree for possession of land was. Passed; that both Allah Rakha and Habib Ullah had been promising that the share will be given to the petitioners. This suit was according to the plaint; dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file afresh. On the record, there is also a suit filed by Muhammad A.I petitioner challenging the alienation by means of the said decree under custom. This suit was filed on 13.11.1975 and after a full dressed trial was dismissed on 12.4.1978. Now the learned Courts below have referred to the said documents to hold that the petitioners who were parties to the said suit have deliberately omitted to mention the fact of said alienation of Habib Ullah in favour of Allah Rakha and the dismissal of the suit filed by Muhammad A.I petitioner and have accordingly found the suit to be barred by law. Now the learned Courts below have found that. No pleadings have been made with regard to the said earlier alienation and particularly the litigation pertaining thereto and as such the suit is ultimately bound to fail.
5. Reverting back to the said contention of the learned counsel , as observed by me above, there can be no cavil with the said proposition but at the same time, where documents are available on record which by their own force, upon a reading by the Court, can lead to the conclusion that the suit is bound to fail, then the same can be read and considered by the Court while examining the plaint for the purpose of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. I may refer here to a recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v.
Malik Hassan A.I Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs (2002 S.C.M.R. 338), wherein the apex Court had opined while dealing with the case in somewhat similar circumstances that where material is available on record which on its own strength is legally sufficient to refute the claim of the plaintiff then the same can also be looked into for the purposes of rejection of the plaint. His Lordship has, of course, added a note of caution by observing that it does not necessarily 'mean that the other material shall be taken as a conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, but it actually moderated that other material on its own intrinsic value to be considered alongwith the averments made in the plaint. Now in the present case the said material referred to by me above if considered alongwith the contents of the plaint does go to show that the suit is bound to fail ultimately and as such it would not be proper to take the parties to trial when the matter stands fore-closed. I, therefore, do not find a case being made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. This Civil is dismissed in limine.
6. Record of the learned Trial Court be remitted back immediately . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.