SHAHEEM NASIR KHAN vs Mst. ASMAT ARA and 6 others
This civil revision arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Thatta, dismissing an application for the rejection of a plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The applicant sought to reject the suit on grounds of limitation, lack of cause of action, and the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alongside Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to reject the plaint when the defendant raised defenses of limitation and res judicata. The High Court held that the trial court was justified in dismissing the application, as the determination of whether a plaintiff possesses a cause of action or whether a suit is barred by limitation requires evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at the stage of Order VII, Rule 11. The court affirmed that rejection of a plaint is only warranted if the plaint itself fails to disclose a cause of action, not merely because the defendant disputes the existence of one.
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of limitation or res judicata before evidence is recorded?
- What is the distinction between a plaint failing to disclose a cause of action and a plaintiff having no cause of action?
- Is the determination of a cause of action a matter to be decided solely on the face of the plaint or through evidence?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 42, Specific Relief Act 1877
1. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No,28 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Thatta against the present applicant and other respondents for declaration and injunction. In that suit, the present applicant filed an application for rejection of plaint. The Senior Civil Judge, Thatta declined to reject the plaint and dismissed the application of the present applicant by his order dated 21-4- 1997. Against this order the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit was time-barred and it was also barred under the law because previously two suits were filed on the same cause of action. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the suit was filed after their Constitutional petition was disposed of, in which it was observed that the remedy may be sought before the Civil Court. He submitted that the defence pleas are not to be considered for rejection of plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. He submitted that the earlier suits were not similar. The applicant has filed copy of his application filed before the Civil Court for rejection of plaint.
2. Through this application, the applicant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law of limitation, the plaintiffs had no cause of action and it was also barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and section 11, C.P.C. The plaint mentions that there was a dispute between the parties about ownership of the agriculture land mentioned in the plaint and there was litigation in this regard. In these circumstances, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their ownership and a consequent injunction. According to the averments of plaint, there was a continuing cause of action. The suit was not apparently barred by limitation or under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act in the circumstances. However, the applicant could raise these pleas, to be determined on the basis of evidence. The applicant asserted that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. Plaintiffs having no cause of action is something different from the plaint disclosing no cause of action.
3. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action or not can only be determined on the basis of evidence.
4. It could be rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Only in case the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how the earlier suits were between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The facts on record show that the Senior Civil Judge was justified in declining to reject the plaint. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed with costs.
Cited by 7 cases
- Syed Bahadar Shah vs Syed Aamir Shah etc 2025 PHC 248
- CSM Pakistan (Guarantee) Limited vs Kresta Corp 2025 SHC 398
- Professor Dr. Syeda Azra Qamar, vs Kifayat Academy & others, Dr. 2025 SHC 394
- IMRAN MEHMOOD and another vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 12
- Mst. HAJIANI KHATIJA BAI and 8 others vs Haji DAWOOD and 11 others 2003 MLD 828
- Military Estates Officer, Peshswa r Circle, Peshawlr Cantt & Others vs Haji 2025 PHC 48
- ISMAIL Versus Syed ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN SHAH 2021 PLD 98