ABDUL HAMEED Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION

1. This Revision Application uncle: section 115, C.P.C. is filed by the plaintiffs,/applicants against the two concurrent orders of the Courts below, whereby the plaint in Suit No391 of 1984 instituted by the applicants was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. From reading of plaint it is quite clear that the applicants had claimed declaration that they were lawful tenants of the premises in their respective possession and that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were trying to dispossess them illegally and without serving any notice. It was also alleged in the plaint that the applicants were paying rents in respell of their premises to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The two Courts below, however, rejected the plaint on - the ground that the applicants/plaintiffs were trespassers in the premises and that the person who instituted the suit on their behalf was not authorised person. It was also found that the documents on which reliance was placed by the plaintiffs/applicants to prove their lawful possession were bogus documents' It is quite clear from reading of the orders of Courts below that the conclusions drawn by them are not based on the averments in the plaint but in arriving at those conclusions they relied on the pleas raised by the respondents in their written statement. It is an admitted position that no evidence in the case has so far been recorded. It is settled law that the Court while deciding applications under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. must confuse itself to the consideration of fate stated in the plaint. None of the conclusions on which the plaint has been rejected arises from the statements made in the plaint. In these circumstances the rejection of the plaint under Order VII; Rule 11, C.P.C. was wholly un-warranted. I accordingly accept this Revision Application set aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the case back to the trial Court; with the direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with the law. It is clarified that with regard to the question of jurisdiction, the Court will be at liberty to frame any such issue which may arse from the pleadings of the parties and if the Court so find it necessary, may decide the same as a preliminary issue, in the light of the evidence which may be recorded in the case. There will be no order as to costs.

2. M.Y.H./A-343/K Case remanded.