DIN MUHAMMAD and others vs ABDUL REHMAN KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendants against the decision of the High Court, which allowed the respondent's civil revision, set aside the rejection of the plaint, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision. The suit had originally been dismissed by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of preliminary objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the controversy between the parties was already concluded by decisions of the Custodian/Settlement Authorities and under the Rent Restriction Law, which explicitly barred fresh proceedings before civil courts. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by the relevant settlement and rent laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the issue regarding the bar of jurisdiction and other points raised, while ordering a stay of proceedings in the interim.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by previous decisions of the Settlement Authorities and rent restriction laws?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the maintainability of a civil suit following the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side against the acceptance of the respondent's Civil Revision and remand of the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision.
2. ' Learned counsel stated that the controversy raised in the suit stood concluded by the decisions of the Custodian/Settlement Authorities and the matter also stood decided under the Rent Restriction Law. And notwithstanding the bar contained in the relevant laws regarding the commencement of fresh proceedings before the Civil Courts, the respondent filed the present suit, wherein the preliminary objection of the petitioners was upheld and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent's appeal was also dismissed. However, his Civil Revision was allowed by the High Court. Therefore, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. The point raised by the learned counsel with regard to the bar of jurisdiction as also other points raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted.
4. ' Security Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.
6. ' Proceedings stayed meanwhile. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.