' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.--- This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court on 16-6-2003 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for the cancellation of gift-deeds executed on 8-3-2000 and 30-8-2000 and registered on 9-3-2000 and 12-9-2000 respectively in respect of land in the Court of Sub-Judge, Dadyal. The trial Court rejected the suit. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mirpur which was also dismissed and a further appeal before the High Court was also rejected. This appeal challenges the aforesaid judgment and order.
3. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqlabi, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court and the Courts below did not appreciate the bundle of facts alleged in the plaint and thus, illegally rejected the suit without looking into the relevant law as such the order passed by the High Court is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside.
4. Syed Khalil Ahmad Bukhari, the learned counsel representing the respondents, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant, argued that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action as, according to him, it was not shown that which of the right of the appellant was infringed, therefore, the same was correctly rejected by the trial Court and on appeal the order was affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
Before arriving at the conclusion whether the plaint under discussion discloses any cause of action or not, we would like to look for the relevant law i.e, Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Which is reproduced:-- "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 under-valued 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."
6. For attraction of sub-rule (a) of rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. It is required to be seen as to what cause of action means? The term 'cause of action refers to every fact which if traversed, it should be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right. It means the whole of material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove, in order to succeed. Precisely, the term, 'cause of action' refers to the ground on the basis of which the plaintiff asks for a favourable judgment. The term, 'cause of action' came under discussion before the Lahore High Court in a case titled Abdul Rehman v. Wahid Bakhsh and others PLD 1977 Lah. 1243, which was resolved in the following manner:-- ' It is true that the cause of action, as generally understood means bundle of facts which if traversed, a suitor claiming relief is required to prove for obtaining judgment. Nevertheless, it does not mean that even if on such fact, a constituent of cause of action is in existence, the claim can succeed. The totality of the facts must co-exist and if anything is wanting the claim would be incompetent. A part is included in the whole but the whole can never be equal to the part. It is also well understood that not only the party seeking relief should have a cause of action when the transaction or the alleged act is done but also at the time of the institution of the claim. For example, there may be a case where at the time when an action is brought, there is no right to seek the remedy though the remedy was available when the right was infringed. A suitor is required to show that not only a right has been infringed in a manner to entitle him to a relief but also that when he approached the Court, the right to seek the relief was in existence."
' The proposition also came under discussion before the Dacca High Court in a Division Bench case titled Burmah Eastern Ltd. v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190 where it was resolved as under:-- ' "... Although under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint if, on a perusal thereof, it appears that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw Court's attention to the same by way of an application. The Court can, and, in most cases, does hear lawyers on the points involved are two-fold: In the first place, it contemplates that a still-born suit should be properly buried, at its inception, so that no further time is consumed on a fruitless litigation. Secondly, it gives plaintiff a chance to retrace his steps, at the earliest possible moment, so that, if permissible under law, he may found a properly constituted case. Order VII, rule 11 of the Code, enumerates certain categories under which the Court is called upon to reject a plaint, but it is obvious that they are not exhaustive. It appears from the language of rule 11, Order VII that it requires that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as not being permitted by law. A suit may be specifically barred by law and, in such an event, the matter would come under the express terms of clause (d) of rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. But, even in a case where a suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint. This really amounts to saying that Order VII, rule 11, is not exhaustive."
' Similar proposition was debated before the Supreme Court of India in a case titled T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC 2421 where the same was resolved in the following words:- ' We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful --not formal --- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to. Sue, he should exercise his ppwer under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch.XI) and must be triggered against them...."
7. Keeping in view the law quoted above, it can safely be resolved that a suit can be rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. If the same does not disclose a cause of action for which the plaintiff is not only to allege the bundle of facts but is also required to show that not only the right has been infringed but a right to seek a relief was in existence. It may also be observed that the provisions of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Are not exhaustive. Therefore, if at any stage, it appears to the Court that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw the Court's attention to the same by way of an application and the Court can decide the matter under the above rule, i.e, Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. As the policy of law is that the incompetent suits should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as by being permitted by law. In a cause where a suit is not permitted by implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint.
8. We have perused the plaint minutely and are of the view that the same does not disclose any cause of action and the appellant-plaintiff has failed to show any infringement of the right. It is also worth-mentioning that the appellant though showed his right in the heading and prayer of the plaint but did not show any right in the body of the plaint. Therefore, we are of the confirmed view that the suit did not disclose any cause of action as such was correctly rejected by the High Court and the subordinate Courts. The appeal, therefore, is meritless which is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, the application filed for interim relief also stands dismissed.