KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the order passed by the High Court on 5-8-2002, whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed and the plaint filed by him in the trial Court was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant, a resident of District Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, purchased Masi Fargosan Tractor Model 1996 from respondent No.2, Muhammad Arshad Abbas, resident of Bakher Bar, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha, Pakistan, for Rs.3,62,000. An agreement between the parties was executed at Sargodha Pakistan. Respondent No.4, a resident of Village Khairpur, District Rahimyar Khan, lodged a F.I.R. At Police Station Rahimyar Khan alleging therein that he was the owner of the aforesaid Tractor which has been forcibly snatched from him by some persons. On this report a case under section 395, Penal Code was registered. The said Tractor was claimed to be in the custody of the plaintiff-appellant. After taking necessary proceedings under the provisions of Extradition Act, the officials of Police Station Kotli seized the aforementioned Tractor from the custody of the appellant. The appellant filed a declaratory suit with the prayer for perpetual injunction on 4-6-2001, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kotli. He fixed the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee as Rs.1,000. Alongwith the suit he also moved an application for the stay order which was issued in his favour by the said Court.
Consequently the custody of the Tractor in question could not be handed over to Muhammad Naeem Baber, A.S.-I. Police Station Saddar, Tehsil Rahimyar Khan. The trial Court in the light of the pleading of the parties framed various issues relating to the disputed questions of fact and law. On the objection of the defendant-respondents the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kotli held that the valuation of the suit is Rs.4,00,000, the alleged price of the Tractor, and directed the appellant to pay the court-fee on this amount as required by law. The appellant challenged the correctness of this order in a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court through order under challenge dismissed the revision petition and also rejected the plaint of the plaintiff--appellant in exercise of the powers available to it under Order VII, rule 11, clauses (a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence this appeal with leave of the Court.
3. Raja Bashir Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that under Order VII, rule 11 of C.P.C. The Court has to take into consideration the averments made in the plaint. According to him, the plaint filed by the appellant was un--ambiguous and in the light of its averments it can be easily ascertained that the plaint was disclosing a cause of action. According to him the written statement for this purpose cannot be taken into consideration because in that case Court shall have to express its judicial verdict about the disputed questions of fact and law raised by the parties in their respective pleadings. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in applying clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. In the instant case. According to the learned counsel, the perusal of these provisions of law would reveal that on the facts of the present case these provisions were not attracted. These provisions can be applied only where a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or where it is barred by any other law. He further submitted that in the revision petition only the matter relating to the court-fee was challenged, therefore, the High Court under law was required to confirm the order passed by the trial Court or alter the same. The High Court without providing the right of hearing to the appellant rejected his plaint under the provisions contained in Order VII, rule 11 of C.P.C., therefore, he craved that the order of the High Court being in excess of its jurisdictional competence be set aside: The learned counsel placed reliance upon a case titled Khadim Hussain v. Jamal Hussain and 2 others (1997 M LD 2952), wherein it was laid down that the dispute relating to cause of action can be decided only in the light of the averments made in the plaint.
4. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, Raja Tariq Pervaiz Nawabi, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the appellant has not purchased this Tractor from bona tide owner. This is a stolen property which was found in his possession by the police during the investigation of the case which was registered in respect of the same Tractor at Police Station Rahimyar Khan on the report of true owner. According to him after taking necessary proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Extradition Act a warrant was issued for the recovery of said Tractor by the competent authority. In furtherance of this warrant the officials of the Police Station Kotli recovered the Tractor from the custody of the appellant. The appellant without any lawful justification filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kotli and obtained the stay order under which the custody of the Tractor could not be handed over to Muhammad Naeem Babar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Saddar Rahimyar Khan, who at the relevant time was investigating the case. The learned counsel further argued that as respondents are the residents of Pakistan and cause of action has also arisen at Sargodha, Pakistan, where agreement dated 4-1- 2001 was executed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable before the Senior Civil Judge at Kotli.
Moreover as a warrant for recovery of the said Tractor was issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Extradition Act, therefore, the Civil Judge was barred by law in taking further proceedings about this Tractor in a civil suit as contemplated by clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the following authorities: PLD 1987 Quetta 189), a plaint was rejected by the Court on the basis of its own contents by holding it barred by time.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case and the reports of the authorities referred by them. There is no dispute about the principles which have been laid down in these authorities, therefore, these need not be discussed in the coming part of this judgment. Admittedly in the light of the contents of the plaint filed by the appellant, it is clear that an agreement between him and respondent No.2, Muhammad Arshad Abbas, was executed at Sargodha. The whole amount was paid to the said respondent at Sargodha, therefore, there is no-dispute between these two parties. The dispute has arisen out of the F.I.R. Which was lodged by respondent No.4 at Police Station Rehimyar Khan under section 395, Penal Code. In this F.I.R. Respondent No.4 alleged that he was deprived of from the aforementioned Tractor forcibly by some persons. This Tractor was found in the custody of the present appellant at Kotli. On account of this reasonthe necessary proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Extradition Act and a warrant for the recovery of said Tractor was issued by the competent authority, in pursuance of which the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Police, recovered the same from the custody of the appellant because they under the provisions of the Extradition Act were duty hound to hand-- over the custody of the said Tractor to the Incharge Police Station Saddar, Tehsil Rahimyar Khan, where a case under section 395 was registered. The plaint, therefore, was liable to be rejected under clause (d) of Order VII, rule 11 of C.P.C. In the same way the answering respondents were shown in the plaint, the residents of District Sargodha and Rahimyar Khan, therefore, the plaint was not maintainable in the Court of law established at Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
6. As rightly observed by the High Court that the trial Courts ale duty bound to exercise judicial powers after a meaningful reading of the pleadings of toe parties. In this case, the Court should have gone through the contents of the plaint before assuming the jurisdiction. After the meaningful study of the plaint it becomes clear that it does not disclose a cause of action at Kotli, therefore, the same was barred under Order VII, rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. Very vast powers are available to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction as well as under the provisions of the Interim Constitution Act 1974. The learned Judge in the High Court, C therefore, was justified in law in rejecting the plaint as it was not maintainable on account of the aforementioned provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Even otherwise the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that before rejecting the plaint of the appellant he was not heard about the cause of action is also without force because on the direction of the High Court the written statements were filed by the parties including the appellant. The written statements filed by the appellant have been placed on the record of this Court at pages 35 to 36 of the paper book. The appellant in his written arguments has admitted that he was asked to explain his case as to whether cause of action was available to him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Kotli. The exact words used by him are as under:--