SAHIB KHAN vs Mir ADAM KHAN and 9 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had affirmed the rejection of the petitioner’s plaint in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner sought possession of property, but the trial court, affirmed by the appellate and revisional courts, rejected the plaint on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the plaint without allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court held that while the rejection of a plaint should generally occur at the initial stage based on the averments, the petitioner had failed to disclose the date of knowledge regarding the alienation or delivery of possession of the suit property. The Court established the principle that where a plaintiff relies on the date of knowledge to overcome a limitation bar, the plaint must specifically assert that date. Because the petitioner omitted these essential details, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' dismissal of the suit and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it fails to disclose the date of knowledge required to overcome a limitation bar?
- Is it mandatory for a plaintiff to specifically plead the date of knowledge in a pre-emption suit when claiming limitation based on such knowledge?
- Does the rejection of a plaint require the court to allow the production of evidence regarding limitation?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-4-1996 passed by Peshawar High Court, Dera Ismail Khan Bench.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to present petition are, that on 6-5-1993 petitioner filed suit before Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat, seeking possession through pre-emption concerning a plot alongwith house, measuring about three Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos.6367/6276/3501 Mauza Khuda-e-Dad Khel. Respondents contested the claim and filed written statement. However, before effective proceedings were drawn that towards 6-6-1993 respondents submitted an application seeking rejection of the plaint. After hearing the parties, trial Court rejected the plaint and directed dismissal of suit by means of judgmnet/decree dated 8-2-1994. Appeal filed against the above decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment/decree dated 14-9-1994.
Similarly Revision Petition No,221 of 1994 filed by petitioner challenging the above referred decisions of the two Courts below was rejected by Dera Ismail Khan Bench of the Peshawar High Court, vide judgment dated 9-4-1996, which has been impugned through present petition.
3. Mr. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate .Supreme Court, for the petitioner relying on the dictum laid in case reported in 1990 SCM R 1630 (Ghulam Ali v. Asmatullah) urged that rejection of plaint could be ordered only at the initial stages merely on the averments of the plaint and without drawing proceedings or embarkment upon merits. It was argued that while determining question of limitation in the instant case it was necessary to provide opportunity for producing evidence but same has been arbitrarily denied, therefore, impugned judgments were inherently defective.
4. Opposing the petition on behalf of respondents it was contended that plaintiff ought to have explained circumstances which reflect that suit was filed within prescribed period of limitation. He maintained that allegation contained in the plaint did not disclose valid cause of action and suit glaringly suffered from bar of limitation, therefore, forums below were justified in passing impugned judgments.
5. We have perused the record and considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil to the proposition that normally question pertaining to rejection of plaint should be dealt with at the initial stage. However, on bare perusal of the plaint, it may be seen that petitioner has consciously omitted to provide any detail showing cause of delay for approaching the Court or actual date of his knowledge about delivery of possession of 'suit land' to contesting respondents. Since petitioner was basing his claim of limitation from date of knowledge, it was obligatory for him to specifically assert the date when he became aware about the alienation of disputed property or delivery of its possession. The forums below have rejected the plaint mainly on considering plain averments and detail mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, we do not find any material defect, impropriety or illegality in the impugned judgments. Accordingly refusing leave to appeal the petition is dismissed.