YUSUF KHAN And Others vs Wadera MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the civil revision application filed by the petitioners. The underlying litigation involves a suit for declaration and possession of land filed by the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period and sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court and the High Court erred in refusing to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation at the preliminary stage without recording evidence or allowing a proper hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had provided proper and cogent reasons for its decisions and had issued adequate clarifications directing the trial court to decide the question of limitation in accordance with law, either upon hearing the parties or after recording evidence if necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's view.
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation without recording evidence?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against an interlocutory order refusing to reject a plaint?
- Whether the High Court's direction to the trial court to hear parties and decide the question of limitation in accordance with law is legally sustainable?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single Judge of Baluchistan High Court dated 2-4-1986 dismissing a civil revision application filed by petitioners.
2. The Revision application arose out of a suit filed by respondents on 28-6-1981 for declaration and possession of the suit land in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Karachi. The petitioners resisted the suit on various grounds including the point of limitation.
3. Initially the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the suit by order dated 16-8-1981 but on appeal the High Court remanded the case by the judgment dated 5-10-1983 with the following observations:- "The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed and judgment of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. The case will go back to the Deputy Commissioner who will frame issues and pass it to the Qazi of that area for disposal."
4. When the case came up for hearing before the Court of Qazi, petitioners' applied under Order VII, Rule 11. C . P. C . For rejection of the plaint of the suit on the ground of limitation. This application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 9-9-1985. On petitioners' revision application against this order the High Court made the following direction and disposed of the revision application accordingly by the order dated 12-10-1985, which reads as under:- "I would order the learned Qazi to hear both the parties on the question of limitation, and to give his decision on that point in accordance with law. However, if after hearing the learned counsel for the defendants, he feels that the evidence is required, he may pass the order accordingly."
5. Petitioners filed a review application against this order which was rejected by learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 11-11-1985 with the following observations.
6. "I do not see any reason to review my order dated 12-10-1985, however, suffice it to observe that the learned trial Court will decide the question of limitation and the question whether any evidence is to be recorded or not in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly when the case came up for hearing before the trial Court petitioners again insisted on rejection of the plaint within the purview of Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. This request was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 18-1-1986 and it was this order that was challenged by the petitioners in the revision application before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
8. Mr. Azizullah Memon learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal raised the same points that were urged on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court. Since all these points have been rejected by the High Court for proper and cogent reasons and in order to obviate further confusions with regard to the disposal of the case ample clarification has already been made by the High Court in the judgment itself, we find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.