SH. MANZOORUL HAQ vs BEGUM TASLEEM RIAZ HAMDANI AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a civil revision petition in limine. The petitioner sought specific performance of a contract of sale, having previously filed and withdrawn a suit, followed by a second suit where the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After subsequent litigation, the petitioner filed a fresh suit, which was again rejected. The core legal question was whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of an earlier suit's failure when the new suit involves different defendants and claims. The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the plaint because it failed to disclose a triable cause of action against the newly added defendants, who were innocent vendees for consideration. The Court affirmed that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against original vendors, while potentially actionable in a suit for damages, could not serve as a basis for specific performance against subsequent innocent purchasers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, as the trial court's finding regarding the lack of a triable cause of action remained irrefutable.
- Can a plaint be rejected for failure to disclose a triable cause of action against newly added defendants who are innocent vendees?
- Does the rejection of a previous suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude a subsequent suit if the cause of action against new defendants is distinct?
- Can allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against original vendors be used to sustain a claim for specific performance against subsequent innocent purchasers?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the order, dated 27-4-1982 of Lahore High Court : whereby a civil revision petition was dismissed in limine.
2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had withdrawn a suit, filed against the respondents Nos.
3. 1 and 2 for specific performance of a contract of sale (on misrepresentation of facts by them). His subsequent suit for the same purpose failed on account of the rejection of the plaint under Order VII. Rule 11, C. P. C. This rejection was disapproved by the appellate Court and the case was remanded. But the High Court later on restored the order of rejection. The petitioner's effect to seek review from the High Court also failed. Seeing no other alternation left, learned counsel further explained, the petitioner filed a fresh suit for the same relief, but, again he had failed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier failed upto the High Court.
4. It has been contended that, subject to the last suit being within limitation and other necessary conditions regarding court-fee having been satisfied, the plaint could not again be rejected on the ground that an ear--lier suit of similar nature had concluded under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. He has urged that the merits should also have been considered.
5. The learned trial Court did notice that the effective relief claimed this time was against-newly added defendants-the subsequent innocent vendees for consideration and that the plaint did not disclose a triable cause of action against them. That being so the plaint was rejected. If this position remains irrefutable, then the mere fact that the High Court this time, also relied on the earlier failure of the petitioner, would not make any practical difference. The grievance of the petitioner that his allegations against the vendors with regard to fraud and misrepresentation have not yet been tried, could be the subject-matter in a suit for damages against them but as held by the learned trial Judge, in the circumstances of this case, it could not be made a basis for relief against the innocent purchasers.
6. With these observations we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 2 cases
- PARVEEN AKHTAR and 3 others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD and others 2015 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 7
- PARVEEN AKHTAR and 3 others vs ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD and 5 others 2016 PLJ AJ&K 19