ABDUL WAHID vs AHMAD DIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute concerning the maintainability of a subsequent suit following the dismissal of a prior suit in default. The petitioner challenges a High Court order that allowed a revision petition, arguing that the respondent approached the court with unclean hands by withholding information regarding the previous dismissal. The core legal question is whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on averments made in the memorandum of appeal, and whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the previous suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the substantial points raised regarding the applicability of these procedural bars and the scope of judicial discretion in revision proceedings require further consideration. The Court held that the matter warrants a full hearing to determine if the lower courts were legally justified in rejecting the plaint based on the procedural history of the litigation.
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on averments made in the memorandum of appeal?
- Does the dismissal of a previous suit under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9?
- Is a revision petition maintainable if the petitioner has approached the court with unclean hands?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order IX Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--By this petition leave is sought on the ground that the revision petition is discretionary relief and is not available to a person who comes to the Court with unclean hands. Respondent contumaciously withheld information from the learned trial Court about the dismissal of the previous suit and as such he could not avail of the fact that rejection of the plaint cannot be ordered on averments not embodied in the plaint itself; that respondent admitted dismissal of his previous suit in the grounds of appeal before the learned District Judge as the appeal was in continuation of the suit and as such averments in the memorandum of appeal can be looked into for purposes of Order VII, rule 11(d), C.P.C. And this fact was also admitted by the petitioner in the Civil Revision filed in the High Court; that the previous suit was filed on the same cause of action which was dismissed in default under Order IX, rule 8 which bars maintainability of the subsequent suit under Order IX, rule 9, C.P.C., and, therefore, the learned Courts below were justified in law in rejecting the plaint.
2. The above points arise out of the following facts. The plaintiff/ respondent filed an application for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from demolishing the house of the plaintiff and converting it into a lane, till the decision of the case. The petitioner contested the application and stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit which had been dismissed under Order IX, rule 8, C.P.C., and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application of the plaintiff and returned his plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
As barred by Order IX, rule 9, C.P.C. Appeal filed before the District Judge was also dismissed per order, dated 7-2-1981. Thereafter revision petition was filed in the High Court which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 25-5-1983.
Substantial point raised by the learned counsel needs consideration. Leave granted. Security rupees two thousand and five hundred only. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if desired.
Cited by 2 cases
- LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LTD. vs ASMATULLAH SHEIKH 1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1243
- LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. vs ASMATULLAH SHEIKH 1996 PLD Lahore 602