'Concurrent findings of the Courts below are assailed through this civil revision. The main grievance of the petitioner was that while disposing of his petition under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., his plaint was rejected. The main reason appears to be that the petitioner could not produce the document of his title. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that merely an objection raised in the written statement, did not provide a justification for passing an order as the one impugned before this Court.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has vehemently opposed the revision petition and states that the orders passed by the Courts below were correct and lawful and that the petitioner had no title, otherwise he would have appended some documents with his suit.
3. The tendency of rejecting the plaints while passing an interlocutory order on an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Is not appreciated. After a plaint has been filed and the suit entertained, a plaintiff ought to be told in clear terms that his plaint was to be rejected if he is unable to persuade the Court on the question of his title.
4. A suit commences through filing of plaint. A plaint has to be formulated in accordance with the requirements of Order VI of the C.P.C. A trial Court is supposed to go through the plaint and may strike out what may be offending to the provisions of Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. And may also allow amendment of the pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.
5. Order VII of the C.P.C. Explains what is to be reflected in a plaint. According to Order VII, Rule 9, C.P.C., the plaintiff has to endorse on the plaint or annexed thereto a list of documents required and all these documents are to be examined by the Clerk of Court (by the Chief Ministerial Office of the Court).
6. The plaint may be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which reads as follows:-- "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."
7. A plaint is to be rejected before issuance of summons upon examination at the initial stage by the Court which has to decide whether it can proceed or not. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Are as mandatory as in case of Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Where the plaint is to be returned for presentation to a proper Court. Reference may be made to the following cases: (1) Muhammad Zafar Khan v. Mst. Shehnaz .Bibi and others (1996 CLC 94); (2) Ali Muhammad and others v.
Secretary, Board of Revenue, Sindh, Hyderabad and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 747); (3) Mst. Amina Begum v. Nisar Ahmad (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 159); (4) Pakistan through Secretary v. Devachand Muljimal and others (PLD 1968 Karachi 107) and (5) Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Khan (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 76j.
8. The order of rejection of a plaint has to be speaking order. However, the Courts are no supposed to act in haste after the parties have been 'summoned and rather should decide the petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Before adjudicating upon anything else. Reliance may be placed on the cases of: (1) Muhammad Zafar Khan v. Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and others (1996 CLC 94); and (2)
Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution and others v. Javed Iqbal and others (1997 CLC 21).
9. Instead of rejecting the plaint straightaway, the Court can resort to Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
Asking the plaintiff to take required curative measures. But even under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., an opportunity has to be afforded to the plaintiff for removing the defect. The Courts are required to read Order VI, Rule 17 and Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Together.
10. But once a suit commences and the plaint is not rejected at the initial stage, the Court has then to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to explain why the plaint should not be rejected and the Court has to wait for a reply and may then proceed to reject the plaint if the circumstances so demand.
11. But when a plaint is rejected after the commencement of the suit while deciding an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the Court acts at the back of the plaintiff. Because the case is then fixed for passing of an interlocutory order and not for determination of the question pertaining to the maintainability of the suit.
12. Such a rejection as the present one brings a surprise and sometime a shock as it happens in the case of an unexpected happening. This is neither fair nor proper nor a judicial act and it cannot be appreciated on the touchstone of the fairness while it certainly is an arbitrary order.
13. The tendency of reading the pleadings at the initial stage of a suit is on the decline. The overwork has made our trial Courts mechanical and this decline has to be checked. Whereas, a trial Court should ensure that it proceeded with the plaint which fulfilled the requirements of Order VII, C.P.C. And for a full focus on this aspect, it ought to fix a date for examination of the plaint and for a preliminary hearing and then determine whether the suit can commence and whether a summon under Order V, rule 5, C.P.C. Can be issued and as to what should be indicated in that summons which the opposite-party is required to perform on the first date which may be fixed for hearing or for appearance. Such an examination will save the Courts a lot of time in the future and will also save the time of the defendants at the initial stage and before they are summoned.
14. The trial Court in this case followed exactly the opposite of what has been stated above and this calls for rectification through remand of the case to the trial Court and for fulfilment of the requirements as aforementioned and for re-determination after hearing whether the rejection of plaint under the circumstances and without there being title deeds appended, was the requirements of law or not. The revision is accepted and the case is remanded to the trial Court, where the parties shall appear on the 18th of April, 2002. Consequently, the orders impugned are set aside.