JUDGMENT S.A. RABBANI, J.--- The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No. 28 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Thatta against the present applicant and other respondents for declaration and injunction. In that suit, the present applicant filed an application for rejection of plaint. The Senior Civil Judge Thatta declined to reject the plaint and dismissed the application of the present applicant by his order dated 21.4.1997. Against this order the present revision has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit was time-barred and it was also barred under the law because previously two suits were filed on the same cause of action.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the suit was field after their Constitutional petition was disposed of, in which it was observed that the remedy may be sought before the Civil Court. He submitted that the defence pleas are not to be considered for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. He submitted that the earlier suits were not similar.
4. The applicant has field copy of his application filed before the Civil Court for rejection of plaint.
Through this application, the applicant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit Was barred by law of limitation, the plaintiffs had no cause of action and it was also barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 11, CPC.
5. The plaint mentions that there was a dispute between the parties about ownership of the agriculture land mentioned in the plaint and there was litigation in this regard. In these circumstances, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their ownership and a consequent injunction. According to the averments of plaint, there was a continuing cause of action. The suit was not apparently1 barred by limitation or under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act in the circumstances. However, the applicant could raise these pleas, to be determined on the basis of evidence. The applicant asserted that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. Plaintiff's having no cause of action is something different from the plaint disclosing no cause of action.
Whether the plaintiff has cause of action or not can only be determined on the basis of evidence. It could be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC only in case the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how the earlier suits were between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The facts on record show that the Senior Civil Judge was justified in declining to reject the plaint. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed with costs.