IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA.

 

 

Civil Revision S-52 of 2020:          Aqeel Abbas Soomro vs.

                                                            Qudsia Begum & Others

                                                           

For the applicant                  :           Mr. Abdul Hameed Mangi, Advocate.

                                                           

Date of hearing                    :           03.02.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           03.02.2022.

 

O R D E R

 

Agha Faisal, J.(1) Deferred.  (2)  Granted subject to all just exceptions.  (3&4) The applicant has impugned concurrent findings whereby the plaint was rejected by the learned trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.  It is conserved appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations of the learned trial Court herein below:

“The Plaintiff has sought declaration that he may be declared owner of the suit land but has failed to produce any title document in respect of the suit property in his favor. But he along with his plaint has appended copies of Revenue entries which show ownership of the defendants No.2 to 4 over the suit property. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, provides that any person entitled to any legal character, as to any right as to any property, may institute suit against the person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such, character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled. But in this matter the Plaintiff has failed to file any title document to show that he entitled to any legal character,  as to any right as to any property and as such, he can not  seek  declaration in respect of ownership over the suit property, because, his suit is hit by section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.


                The Plaintiff has sought cancellation of the Revenue entries showing ownership of defendants No.2 to 4, over the suit Property without producing any document showing that he ever was owner of the suit land and subsequently the disputed entries have been kept in Revenue record to usurp his legal right. Moreover, he himself has admitted that he has filed Revenue Appeal before the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Shikarpur, for, cancellation of the disputed Revenue entries and the same is still pending. As suck jurisdiction of this Court is also barred.


                The other reliefs are subject to grant of main relief declaration and the relief of declaration is not found maintainable, such, the remaining reliefs are also not maintainable.

 

The object of exercise of power under O.VII Rule 11 CPC, is to bring an end to the incompetent suits at the earliest to avoid wastage of time to save the parties from rigors of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceeding and to provide safeguard against vexatious claim, and to bury the suit not maintainable on its inception. As such, the Plaint being not maintainable is hereby rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. There is no order as to costs.”

2.         The learned appellate court maintained the trial court order, vide an exhaustive judgment dated 25.01.2020.

3.         At the very outset, learned counsel was asked whether the contention regarding pendency of revenue appeal is correct, he replied in the affirmative and submitted that since the said appeal had not been decided within the time frame expected by applicant, hence the suit was preferred. It was admitted that the revenue hierarchy was the proper forum, hence, the pending appeal there before. However, it was contended that since the revenue appeal had not been decided, therefore, the trial court ought to have assumed jurisdiction.

4.         Learned counsel has not endeavored to articulate any argument insofar the applicability, or otherwise, of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned and has further not articulated any rationale whereby interference of this Court would be warranted under Section 115 CPC. Order VII rule 11 CPC is an independent provision of law and it cannot be rendered redundant. Whether the said provision was rightly exercised or otherwise is another question, which was never agitated by the learned counsel. However, a perusal of the orders impugned demonstrates no patent infirmity and none has been pointed out by the learned counsel.

5.         In view of foregoing, no case has been made out before this Court, hence, this revision application is dismissed in limine.

 

JUDGE