TARIQ MAHMOOD CHAUDHRY. KAMBOH vs NAJAMUNDIN
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court's refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner had sought the rejection of the suit on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a plaint can be summarily rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. on the grounds of limitation when the issue of time-bar involves a mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, holding that where the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be determined summarily without recording evidence. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the trial court correctly framed a specific issue regarding limitation to be resolved after evidence is led, and thus, there was no error in refusing to reject the plaint at the preliminary stage. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground of limitation when the issue involves a mixed question of law and fact?
- Is it necessary to record evidence to determine a limitation issue that is a mixed question of law and fact?
- Does a trial court err by refusing to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. when it has already framed a specific issue regarding the limitation of the suit?
- Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-10-1998 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner to call in question the order dated 12-2-1996 passed by a learned Civil Judge at Lahore whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had moved an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. In a suit praying that the plaint in the said suit instituted against the petitioner should be rejected under the aforesaid provision as the suit was barred by time. The contention was repelled and, thus, a revision petition was filed, which was dismissed vide order impugned.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent who appeared in person, we are of the view that the learned Civil Judge had already framed issue No,2 to the effect that the suit was within time and besides that the learned Civil Judge also gave finding that the question of limitation in the case was a mixed question of law and fact and thus the issue can only be resolved after recording of evidence touching the controversy. In our view, no error had been committed either by the learned Civil Judge or the High Court while arriving at the aforesaid finding and, thus, the learned Civil Judge had rightly rejected the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. And the High Court also correctly upheld the said order.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition justifying interference, therefore, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 16 cases
- WAQAR ALI RAHUJO Versus DILEEP KUMAR 2025 CLC 1394
- Sabiha Bibi vs Abdul Wahab, etc 2024 LHC 5093
- M/s. Democrat Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd vs Abdul Hameed 2023 SHC 246
- Munawar Ali and others vs Umar Daraz And Others 2022 CLC 920
- Pir Jalal Rahman Shah vs Irfan Khan and others 2019 CLC 1124, 2019 PHC 36
- HAMID MAJEED and 2 others vs MAROOF ASHRAF MIAN and 6 others 2019 CLC 490
- Hamid Majeed, etc vs Maroof Ashraf Mian, etc 2019 LHC 1410
- ALTAF HUSSAIN POONAWALLA Versus ASHRAF ESHAK 2017 CLCN 230
- Agha Syed MUSHTAQUE ALI SHAH vs Mst. BIBI GUL JAN and 8 others 2015 CLC 708
- Ashraf Eshak vs Altaf Hussain Poonawalla and another 2011 C.L.R. 952
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others 2005 C.L.R. 783
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD 2005 CLC 1515
- Mst. HAJIANI KHATIJA BAI and 8 others vs Haji DAWOOD and 11 others 2003 MLD 828
- BEGUM HAFIZUNNISA QURESHI and others vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN 2003 CLC 1156
- Messrs ZARKHEZ AGRO ENGINEERING AND SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief 2005 YLR 200
- ZARKHEZ AGRO ENGINEERING AND SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED vs M/s. SARGORAH 2005 PLJ Lahore 1069