Order Sheet
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Civil Revision Application No. S-89 of 2024
Raza Muhammad Arbani
v/s.
Dilsher Ahmed Balouch and others
Applicant: Raza Muhammad son of Naseer Muhammad
Arbani through Mr. Idrees Ahmed Mangi, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 15.08.2024
Date of Order 15.08.2024
O R D E R
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.:- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Order dated 22.08.2023, passed by learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Larkana in Civil Misc. Appln. No 38 of 2023 (old) F.C. Suit No.27 of 2023 (New)(Re-Raza Muhammad v/s. Dilsher Ahmed and others), whereby the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. against that order, the Applicant preferred Civil Appeal No.152 of 2023(Re-Raza Muhammad Arbani v/s Dilsher Ahmed and others), same was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-V, Larkana vide Judgment and Decree dated 06.05.2024 and 08.05.2024 respectively. Hence, this Civil Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant/Plaintiff to set aside the impugned Order/Judgment, decree passed by the lower courts.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the Plaintiff/Applicant filed F.C. Suit No.27 of 2023 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction, demonstrating that in the year 2019/2020, a transaction occurred between Defendants No.1 and 2, witnessed by Plaintiff, at Defendant No.2's residence regarding a plot of land measuring 4000 square feet situated at Ratodero Bye-Pass near the Shrine of Bashir Khan Qureshi. Defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.9.6 Million to Defendant No.2 on multiple occasions, and Defendant No.2 issued several cheques in favour of Defendant No.1. The averment of the plaint further indicates that following the registration of an F.I.R. Defendant No.1, who was incarcerated, approached the Plaintiff to demand reimbursement of the amount paid to Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff declined to make such payment, asserting non-liability for the transaction between Defendants No.1 and 2. Subsequently, Defendant No.1 issued threats of severe consequences to Plaintiff. Pursuant to these threats, Defendant No.1 filed a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana (Respondent No.7), leading to the involvement of the Station House Officer (S.H.O) of Police Station Hyderi (Respondent No.5), who called Plaintiff and his brother Rahib Ali to the police station. The Plaintiff alleges that both he and his brother were subjected to unlawful detention and undue pressure by police officials. Consequently, Plaintiff, having no alternative remedy, seeks judicial intervention to obtain a declaration that Defendant No. 1's demand for payment is illegal, void ab initio, and contrary to law. Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the actions of the Respondent officials, in unlawfully detaining the Plaintiff, his brother, and other family members, are null and void ab initio and contrary to legal standards. The Plaintiff further requests that the Respondents be restrained from harassing him and from making any further illegal demands.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the impugned Order dated 22.08.2023 and Judgment and Decree dated 06.05.2024 and 08.05.2024, respectively, are against the law and facts result of misapplication of the law; that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not considered the real facts and erred in passing the impugned Order and the Judgment, hence the same may be set aside and this Civil Revision Application may be allowed as prayed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant peruse the record and the order/judgment of the two courts below. The plaint of the Applicant was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.; it is deemed appropriate to scrutinise the provisions delineated under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the present juncture. The said provision is reproduced below:
"(11) Rejection of plaint.---The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action.
(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
5. It is essential to analyse the grounds upon which a plaint is subject to rejection. Substantial jurisprudence exists on this matter, incorporating a broad spectrum. On one hand of the spectrum, there is a notable emphasis on affording paramount importance to the averments within the plaint, to the exclusion of extraneous considerations. Conversely, the spectrum extends to include an examination not only of the plaint itself but also of the attached documents and, stretching further, scrutiny of other manifest and unequivocal materials present in the record. The subsequent elucidation presents several pivotal judgments of the apex court of Pakistan on this matter.
(i) In the case of Anees Haider and others v. S. Amir Haider and others (2008 SCMR 236), the apex court reaffirmed the doctrinal tenet that reliance on the written statement is untenable.
(ii) In the case of Haji Allah Bukhsh v. Abdul Rehman and others (1995 SCMR 459), it was observed that the averments made in the plaint are presumed to be correct.
(iii) In the case of Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 826), it was determined that legal sanction allows for the examination exclusively of the contents set forth in the plaint, with the defence enunciated in the written statement deemed inadmissible. However, it was well-known that, in conjunction with the plaint, any other material acknowledged by the Plaintiff and produced before the Court may be deliberated. Additionally, it was highlighted that the Court lacks the entitlement to analyse any supplementary material unless it has been duly entered into the record in conformity with the established rules of evidence.
(iv) In the case of Muhammad Saleemullah and others v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala (PLD 2006 SC 511), it was observed that Order VII, Rule 11 anticipates the rejection of a plaint only on the basis of averments made in the plaint, and the pleas raised in the written statement are not to be taken into account. It was also observed that the Court was entitled to rely on the documents annexed to the plaint.
(v) The case of Saleem Malik v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PLD 2008 SC 650), it is a little difficult to reconcile with the overwhelming weight of authority since the observation in this case was "that the court, may, in exceptional circumstances, consider the legal objection in the light of averment of the written statement but the pleading as a whole cannot be taken into consideration for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C"
(vii) In the case of S.M. Shafi Ahmed Zaidi v. Malik Hasan Ali Khan (2002 SCMR 338), the following finding was rendered:
"It was further observed that "it is the requirement of law that incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception. It is in the interest of the litigation party and judicial system itself. The parties are saved their time and unnecessary expenses and the courts gets more time to devote it for the genuine causes."
(viii) In the case of Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Limited v. Mian Abdul Lateef and others PLD 2008 SC 371, it was held that the object of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was primarily to save the parties from the rigorous frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings.
(ix) In the case of Salamat Ali v. Khairuddin 2007 YLR 2453, it was observed that although the proposition that a court, while rejecting the claim under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., could only examine the contents of the plaint was correct, nevertheless, this rule should not be applied mechanically.
(x) In the case of Arif Majeed Malik and others v. Board of Governors Karachi Grammar School (2004 CLC 1029), it was noted that the traditional view was that in order to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, only the contents of the plaint were to be looked into. It was added, however, that this view had since been modified to the extent that an undisputed document placed on record could also be looked into for the aforesaid purpose.
6. The averment of the plaint shows that the Plaintiff sought a declaration in respect of a transaction made between defendant/ respondent No.1 and 2 and not in respect of his own right title and legal character as enunciated in Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for the convenience and brevity, the relevant reads as under:-
"42. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right. Any person entitled to any legal character or to right as to any property, may institute a suit against any 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, and the Plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief." (Underlining is for emphasis)".
7. Suppose any rights arising from a title are infringed or threatened. In that case, an aggrieved person has the right to institute a suit in terms of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration against any person denying or interested in denying the title to such character or right to such property. In its discretion, the Court may declare that he/she (Plaintiff) is entitled. In the instant matter, the applicant/Plaintiff sought the defendant's declaration of an act, not the declaration of his status, right or legal character, as enunciated in the above-cited section. However, in case the official respondents are harassing the plaintiff/Applicant, he may approach the Justice of Peace for redressal of his grievances, if any.
8. In the wake of profound deliberation, this Court is of the view that the applicant has set forth no case to entertain the present revision. Based on the reasoning provided, the civil revision is hereby dismissed, including the pending application. These are the reasons of my short order dated 15.08.2024.
J U D G E