1. This revision application calls in question a judgment dated 6-4-2000 passed by learned District Judge, Central Karachi whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central rejecting the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision application are that the applicant/plaintiff instituted a suit before the trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant.
3. Learned Trial Court vide its orders dated 30-3-1998 rejected the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that it did not disclose the cause of action, suit was barred by sections 42 and 54 of Specific Relief Act, by sections 17 and 105 of Registration Act and also by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also observed that valuation of the suit-property happened to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court. The applicant challenged the said order by. way of appeal before the District Judge. Learned Appellate Court determined the following points for disposal of the appeal:--
(1) Whether the appeal is time-barred?
(2) Whether the learned trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
4. Though the Appellate Court gave finding on Point No,2 in favour of the applicant by observing that instead of rejecting the plaint under. Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C., the same ought to have been returned to the plaintiff but on Point No,1 came to the conclusion that .appeal preferred by the appellant was hopelessly time-barred, hence dismissed the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, respondents except respondent No,2 on whose behalf none appeared though the said respondent has been served by substituted service through publication in daily Nawa-e-Waqt dated 29-10-2000. It is admitted in their arguments that the trial Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction therefore was not competent to pass order under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Learned District Judge has also observed that the plaint was wrongly rejected by the learned lower Court, as the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.
6. 'Since the trial Court was incompetent to exercise its powers under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. its order rejecting the plaint is therefore not legal.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the impugned orders be set aside and the plaintiff/applicant be allowed to present the paint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. Orders are passed B accordingly. This revision application stands disposed of in these terms.