ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constitutional Petition No.D- 124 of 2021.

Date of hearing                                Order with signature of Judge.

                        1.For orders on office objections “A”.

                        2. For orders on M.A.No.733/2021.

                        3. For orders on M.A.No.734/2021.

                        4.For hearing of main case.                      

29.3.2023.

                        Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Barejo, Advocate for the petitioners.

                        Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl.A.G Sindh.

=.=.=.=.=.=

                        Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant petition are that a Suit for Declaration, Separate Possession, Cancellation of Entry and Permanent Injunction was filed by the private respondents; the plaint whereof was sought to be rejected by the petitioners by filing an application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; it was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Warrah, vide order dated 11.09.2020; it was impugned by the petitioners by preferring a revision application; it was dismissed by learned District Judge, Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber, vide order dated 10.02.2021, which is impugned by the petitioners before this Court by way of instant petition.

            It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject property was already sold by its previous owner, therefore, the plaint of the subject suit being incompetent was liable to have been rejected; learned Trial  and Revisional Courts by making refusal to reject the same have committed illegality which is to be corrected by this Court. By contending so, he sought for rejection of plaint of the subject suit, which is opposed by learned Addl.A.G Sindh by contending that the controversy involved could only be resolved after recording of evidence.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint could only be rejected when it does not disclose the cause of action; the relief claimed is undervalued and it is not corrected within time to be fixed by the Court; the relief claimed is properly valued but insufficiently stamped and it is not stamped properly within time to be fixed by the Court and it appears to be barred by any law.  In the instant matter, the private respondents have sought for declaration of ownership on the basis of inheritance after seeking cancelation of the entries kept in revenue record fraudulently; such controversy being factual could only be resolved after recording of evidence subject to valuation; the same could not be defeated on point of limitation or otherwise in the summarily manner. In these premises, the learned Trial and Revisional Courts were right to make refusal to reject the plaint by way of impugned orders, those are not to be found illegal to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction; consequently, the instant petition being misconceived is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

                                                           JUDGE

                                                                              JUDGE