Order Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Civil Revision No.S-50/2025
(Ali Sher Ogahi v/s Province of Sindh and others)
_______
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection “A”
2. For hearing of CMA No.277/2025 (S/A)
3. For hearing of main case.
Petitioner: Ali Sher Ogahi and others
Through Mr. Ashique Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate.
Respondents Through Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General,
Sindh.
Date of hearing: 13-05-2025
Date of Decision: 13-05-2025
O R D E R
Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J.-Through the instant Civil Revision Application, the applicants have challenged the Order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge Kandhkot (Trial Court) in Suit No.58/2024 Re Ali Sher and others Versus The Province of Sindh and others and the Order dated 16-01-2025 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District Judge-II Kandhkot (Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No.2/2025 “Re-Ali Sher and others Versus The Province of Sindh and others” wherein the plaint of Suit filed by the applicants was rejected by exercising powers under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.
2. The facts in brief leading to filing of this Civil Revision Application are that applicants filed a Suit No 183 of 2023 averring therein that they were fishermen by birth and licensee of Ghouspur Water Block situated in Taluka Kandhkot. They were granted fishing license for Ghouspur Water Block by the Deputy Director Fisheries Kashmore @ Kandhkot in accordance with law after completing all legal formalities. They paid fishing fees and since last many years they were engaged in fishing which was the source of their earning livelihood. The Respondent No 10 was a highly influential person, he obstructed applicants from fishing and threatened to get their licenses cancelled. On such threats applicants finding no way filed a Suit before Learned Trial Court seeking declaration and Permanent Injunction. On summons, the Respondent No 10 appeared before Trial Court, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that Suit was barred by law under the provisions of Sindh Fisheries Ordinance 1980. The Applicants filed objections to the application, Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application and rejected the plaint of Suit vide order dated 23.01.2024 on the ground that it was barred by section 23 of the Fisheries Ordinance 1980. Applicants preferred appeal No 02/2024 against the order of Trial Court before the Court of District Judge Kashmore @ Kandhkot, which was assigned to the Appellate Court for disposal in accordance with law. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.06.2024 with an observation that questions that the applicants were legal licensees or not and the acts of Fisheries Department for cancellation of licenses of applicants was legal or otherwise required evidence after framing issues, however, Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with an observation that Applicants may bring a fresh suit if permissible under the law.
3. Applicants filed fresh Suit No 58 of 2024 before Learned Trial Court adding Respondents No 4 and 11 in the array of Defendants, seeking declaration against the order dated 18.11.2023 issued by Respondent No 2 wherein fishing license in favor of Applicants was cancelled and Respondents No 10 and 11 were granted fishing license from Ghouspur Public Water Block. The Respondent No 10 on summons appeared before Learned Trial Court, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that license issued in favor of Applicants stood cancelled, they were no more licensee, thus the suit was incompetent and barred under law. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 rejected the plaint on the ground that Suit was not maintainable and barred under section 42, 56(d) of Specific Relief Act (SRA) and Section 23 of the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance 1980 (SFO), as the license of Applicants stood expired on 30.06.2024. The Applicants preferred appeal under section 96 of CPC before the Court of Learned District Judge which was again assigned to the Appellate Court for disposal in accordance with law. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with an observation that license in favor of applicants stood expired therefore suit was not maintainable and plaint was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Hence this Revision Application.
4. On notices of this Revision Application, Respondent No 4 has filed his reply wherein he has admitted that Applicants were issued license for fishing for one year from Ghouspur Water Block, since he stood transferred therefore, he is not in knowledge of cancellation and issuance of fresh licenses to Respondents No 10 and 11. The Respondents No 6 to 9 who are working as SHOs at different police stations filed their reply, wherein they stated that the dispute between parties is that of civil nature over fishing rights and they will abide by the law and orders of the Court.Remaining respondents chose to remain absent despite of service of notices.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the applicants were engaged in the business of fishing, they were fishermen since forefathers and were awarded fishing contracts by the Fisheries Department from time to time and lastly they were granted fishing rights in Ghauspur Water Block vide letter dated 01-07-2023 until 30-06-2024 by the Respondent No 4, the then Deputy Director Fisheries Kashmore @ Kandhkot. Thereafter the said license was withdrawn by fisheries department vide orders dated 18.11.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 Director General Fisheries Hyderabad and the fishing rights were granted to respondents No.10 and 11. He contended that the license was withdrawn without giving them a notice of hearing and Respondents No 10 and 11 who are government servants and not engaged in fishing business were granted licenses, which offended their rights.The Learned Courts below rejected the plaint without application of judicial mind and deprived applicants of earning livelihood. He contended that suit involved the determination of status of Respondents No 10 and 11 regarding grant of fishing rights and cancellation of license of applicants and grant of fishing rights to Respondents No 10 and 11 through letter dated 28.11.2023 was illegal, null and void and issued mala fidely without giving a right of hearing to the applicants, the Courts below were required to determine the legality of cancellation and grant of license on merits by recording evidence. He prayed for allowing this application.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, and contended that Applicants were licensee and they had no right or title in the Ghouspur Water Block which is a public property and Respondents No 1 to 3 by exercising their lawful authority granted licenses in favor of Respondents No 10 and 11, he prayed for dismissal of Revision Application.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on the record.
8. Applicants claim to be fishermen by profession and earn their livelihood on fishing from Ghouspur Water Block, since last many years. They faced resistance at the hands of Respondent No 10 who stopped them from fishing, for which they brought a Suit seeking Declaration and Permanent Injunction that the Respondents/ Defendants be restrained from interference with rights of fishing. The Suit No 183 of 2023 was filed by the Applicants on 16.11.2023, it was admitted on the same date and summons on cost were ordered against the Respondents / Defendants. The apprehension of applicants rang true, the Respondents No 1 to 3 treated the filing of suit as disobedience to their favor earlier done to the applicants and withdrawn their fishing rights license vide order dated 23.11.2023. The Trial Court rejected the plaint of Suit observing that it was barred by section 3 and 23 of the SFO. Applicants preferred appeal No 04 of 2024, the Appellate Court upheld the order of Trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28-06-2024 with an observation that the applicants can bring a fresh suit in terms of Rule 13 of Order 7 CPC. Appellate Court in its order observed that whether the plaintiffs were legal licensee or alleged licenses, whether Respondent No 10 was entitled for grant of license required evidence, however the applicants may bring a fresh suit if they so desire. This observation on the part of Appellate Court was well reasoned that matter between the parties required determination by recording evidence, but by giving such an observation dismissed of appeal. which baffled the wit. Once the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that matter required evidence, it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to set aside the order of Trial Court and remand the matter back to Trial Court with direction to decide the same on merits but this did not happen, which gave latitude to the Respondents to translate their threats into action thus deprived applicants of earning their livelihood.
9. Applicants brought a fresh suit with a fresh cause of action as during the intervening period their licenses were cancelled and Respondents No 10 to 11 were granted fishing rights, their fresh suit also met the same fate, plaint was rejected,appeal was dismissed, through the orders under challenge in this revision application. Meticulous perusal of record reveals thatTrial Court rejected plaint of the suit on the ground that the applicant had no character or title in the property which exclusively belonged to the Government, the licenses issued in favor of Applicant stood expired, the suit was hit by section 42 of SRA read with section 3 and section 23 of the SFO. There is no denial to the fact that the applicants were granted license for a period starting from 01-07-2023 to 30-06-2024 and their licenses were cancelled without giving them any notice of hearing on 28-11-2023, such cancellation of licenses was bad under the law as the title of subject matter of suit was disturbed during the pendency of lis, which amounted to prevent a court of law from the proper determination of rights of the parties, as such was not tenable. This action on the part of Respondents No 1 to 3 defied Court notices, for whichstrict action should have followed, but the Courts below but lost sight of this issue, contrary stamped the actions of Respondents No 1 to 3, by rejecting plaint, which from face of it appeared to have been taken to non-suit the applicants. This manifested ill will on the part of the official respondents and offended the fundamental rights guaranteed to the applicants under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Applicants were fishing under a valid license issued by the Fisheries Department which was to expire on 30-06-2024 but prior to the expiry of their license period a fresh license was issued in favor of the Respondents No.10 and 11, whose entitlement was even questioned by the applicants in the instant proceedings as they were allegedly serving with the Government of Sindh. Rule 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Conduct Rules 2008 bans the involvement of a civil servant in private trade, employment or work. Rule 15 reads as under:
15. Private Trade, employment or work: No civil servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government engage in any trade, undertake any employment or work other than his official duties.
…………
10. The license for fishing rights in favor of the applicants was yet to expire when it was cancelled and a fresh license in favor of the respondents No.10 and 11 was issued, without ascertaining that whether the said Respondents were engaged in fishing business or not. A fisherman gives his life to rivers, waters are his entire property, they live in waters, take care of life in water and in turn they earn livelihood. If they are snatched fishing rights it would amount to snatching their lives. This particular profession or business is proprietorship of a fisherman through nature. Under the provisions of SFO, the government of Sindh has framed Sindh Fisheries Rules of 1983 (Rules)by which a license for fishing in public water is granted in the month of June and July every year through open auction. For the sake of convenience these rules are reproduced below:
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
Karachi, dated the 31st July 1983 NOTIFICATION No.5 (3) SO (F)/81
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980. The Government of Sindh are pleased to make the following rules.
Short title and commencement 1. (1) These rules may be called the Sindh Fisheries Rules, 1983. (2) These rules shall come into force at once.
Definitions
2. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Appendix” means an appendix to these rules; (b) “Fish processing plant” means a factory or yard set up for fish processing; (c) “Licensing Authority” means a civil servant of the Fisheries Department not below the rank of Assistant Warden Fisheries and authorized by Government to act as such; (d) “Mole holder” means a person possessing or holding a place for auctioning shrimps or other fish and is a licensed dealer; (e) “Ordinance” means the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980 and (f) “Section” means a section of the ordinance.
Licenses, permits and special permits
3. (1) The application for a license, permit or special permit shall specify the devices, contrivance or objects, if any, and the number thereof, to be used by the licensee or, as the case may be, the permit holder and shall be accompanied with the fees therefore as specified in Appendix-II.
(2) The licenses, permits or special permits and applications therefore shall respectively be in the form contained in Appendix-I.
(3) All the licenses under these rules shall be registered with the licensing authority.
(4) The form of application of application for licenses, permits and special permits shall be made available to the intending applicant on payment of one Rupee for each form.
(5) Before making any application on prescribed form under sub rule (1) the applicant shall get himself registered with the licensing authority on payment of Rs.10/- as registration fee.
(6) Any person desirous of operating or owning any fishing craft used in connection with the fishing operation, shall get the fishing craft registered with the licensing authority on payment of Rs.50/- as registration fee and shall obtain a registration number, which shall be displayed on each side of the vessel or boat.
(7) The licenses shall be granted within one week of submitting the application along with the prescribed fee as given in Appendix-II unless the licensing authority, for sufficient cause in writing, refuses to grant it.
(8) The licenses, permits and special permits are liable to cancellation on violation of the conditions thereof or on contravention of the provisions of the Ordinance or rules made there under.
Validity licenses and permits
4. (1) A license or permit shall, unless otherwise specified therein, be valid for the financial year for which it is granted.
(2) The special permit shall be valid for the time and day for which it is granted.
Renewal and issue of duplicate licenses
5. (1) A license shall be renewed on application therefore, made within 15 days of the expiry thereof along with the prescribed fees.
(2) If the original license is lost or damaged a duplicate copy thereof may be issued on payment of a fee of five rupees.
Lease of fishing rights
6. (1) The fishing rights of the public waters comprising rivers, canals, drains including river flood water areas for the next year commencing from 1st August, shall be leased out for one year during the months of June and July through open auction after wide publicity through leading newspapers, electronic media and by field staff in the local areas where fishing rights are to be auctioned”.
(1-a) The Government bid for such auction shall not be lower than the highest bid of the previous year or average bid for last three years bids whichever is higher;
(1-b) The fishing rights in public waters other than those mentioned in subrule (1) shall be leased out by auction as aforesaid for a period not exceeding three years;
(1-c) Any lease granted under sub-rule (1-b) for a period less than three years maybe extended by Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf, if the Government as the case may be authorized officer is satisfied that the lessee has properly and efficiently executed his previous lease, for the period which may together with the period of previous lease does not exceed three years on payment of existing lease money plus ten percent there of for every year;
(1-d) The Government bid in respect of auction of fishing rights in new water areas shall be determined by the Director Fisheries Inland Sindh”.
(2) The auction under sub-rules (1) shall be conducted by a committee constituted by the Government.
(3) Before offering any bid every bidder shall deposit with the person or committee conducting the auction earnest money at the rate of 20% of Government bid.
(4) The highest reasonable bid shall ordinarily be accepted by the Chairman of the committee conducting the auction, and in case such bid is not accepted, the matter shall be referred to Government for decision along with the statement of the bids made and the recommendations of the committee.
(5) The successful bidder shall within seven days of the acceptance of his bid enter into a lease agreement with the Assistant Director Fisheries concerned on behalf of Government on the terms and conditions of the lease determined by the Government”.
(6) The successful highest bidder shall pay bid money equal to Government bid at the time of fall of hammer and the balance within seven days from the date of acceptance of the bid;
(7) The earnest money deposited under sub-rule (3) shall be adjourned towards the amount payable under sub-rue (6);
(7-a) If the successful highest bidder fails to deposit bid money as aforesaid, his bid shall be cancelled and the amount so far deposited by him shall stand forfeited and the lease shall be awarded to the second highest bidder who shall deposit bid money within seven days of the award of lease failing which his earnest money shall also be forfeited”.
Condition of fishing by lessee
7. Where any waters are leased out no fishing in such waters shall be carried out except by or under the authority of the lessee and in accordance with the ordinance, these rules and the terms and conditions of the agreement under subrule (5) of rule 6.
Consequences of contravention
8. If the lessee or his representative or any permit holder contravenes any provision of the Ordinance or the rules or the lease agreement, the lease may be cancelled and the security deposited and any other advance payments made by the lessee shall stand forfeited, and on such cancellation the leased water area shall be re-auctioned at the risk and cost of the lessee making the contravention.
General restrictions
9. (1) No licensee or lessee of fishing rights shall obstruct or cause to obstruct, migration, or movement of palla (Hilsa)-fish towards upstream, by using or setting up any kind of set net or any type of fixed engine or device, at or near the mouth of the Indus river and its branches at any place upto sachanwari landing center throughout the year.
(2) The catching of palla by all methods and devices is prohibited within a distance of one mile below the gates of Kotri barrage except for research by authorized employees of the Fisheries Department.
(3) No person shall collect, sell or culture oysters within the creeks and the Indus River delta without obtaining a special permission from the Director on such terms and conditions as are specified in the permission.
(4) The lessee or licensee shall not enter on the head works of a canal without prior permission of the Executive Engineer or any officer authorized by the Irrigation authorities.
Returns
10. The licensee or lessee shall, when called upon to do so by the Inspector of Fisheries or other officer authorized by the Director, furnish the factual data regarding the area fished out, the gear used and the type and quantity of fish caught and brought to the market or collection center for sale. Demarcation & sanctuary
11. The span of public waters declared as sanctuary shall be so demarcated and indications given by signs, symbols and otherwise that the persons who happens to visit or use those waters should at once know that it is sanctuary.
Quantity and size of the fish
12. The fish specified in column 1 of the table below shall not be caught below the size specified in the first schedule to the Ordinance and more than the quantity respectively specified there against in column 2 thereof by the fishing gear specified in the said column: -
7 TABLE Name of Fish Quantity A.Rohu. By rod and line (Labio rohita) B.Mori (Cirrihinamrigala) 5 fish of any variety. C.Thaila (Catlacatla). By either method
Size of the meshes
13. The size of the meshes of any nets used by any licensee for Rohu (Labro rohita) Mori (Cirrihinamrigala) Thailla (Catlacatla) Colbasu (Labio calbasu) shall be 15 centimeter all round.
Departmental fishing
14. (1) In case any public waters are not fetching reasonable bid then it may be fished departmentally. (2) The holder of a license under sub-rule(1) shall at his own cost, bring all catches of the fish at the market or as the case may be, collection center specified in such license. (3) The fish so brought shall be disposed off by auction by the representative of the Fisheries Department not below the rank of Assistant Director Fisheries or equivalent and the licensee shall receive such percentage of the sale proceeds of his catch as the Government may notify in this behalf and different percentages of sale proceeds of catches may be notified for different waters. Regulation of fishing crafts
11. The bare reading of these rules reveals that fishing is not an ordinary job, it requires skill and fishermen is the right person to be granted fishing rights. Because fishing rights does not involve only fish catching, it involves the question of water life, the inhabitants in waters of river, canal etc, therefore fishermen are the only persons who can take care of life in water. The applicants by virtue of being fishermen had character in their favor as a birthright and that right has been regulated through customary practices since the inception of human being, any implied meaning of section 42 of SRAwould not oust a fisherman to claim his rights over life in waters, this right is a recognized right, which does not require any title. The provisions of SFO and Rules framed thereunder were aimed at protecting the rights of life in water and to regulate the fishing in public waters so that the life in water could not be put into peril on account of unabated fishing.
12. The Civil Court is a Court of Ultimate Jurisdiction, wherein any action on the part of authorities taken mala fidely with ulterior motives can be challenged and Court shall adjudicate such matters to determine the rights of aggrieved person. The Applicants were granted fishing rights for a year, the license was cancelled in between. Sindh Fisheries Rules 1983 empower the authorities to grant a fishing license in public waters in the month of June and July through public auction, it is very strange that Respondents No 10 & 11 were granted license over public waters in the month of November without open auction, which action on the part of Respondents No 2 to 4 was not tenable under the law, but even than the Courts below non-suited the applicants. Since the issue of entitlement of parties as to the fishing rights was involved, it required evidence after framing of issues but the learned trial court by application of section 42 of SRA, inferred that the applicants lacked the title to agitate their grievance before civil court. The trial court also made a specific mention of section 56(d) of Specific Relief Act which restrains from granting of permanent injunction when a matter involves interference in the public duties of any department of the Government. Section 56(d) reads as under:
(d) to interfere with the public duties of any department of [the Central Government or any provincial Government], or with the sovereign acts of a foreign Government;
The applicants by seeking their entitlement for fishing rights were in no any manner interfering with the public duties, on the contrary they were assisting the public functionaries for grant of a right in favor of a right person.
13. The grant of the license in favor of the respondents required evidence as to their entitlement such exercise can be undertaken by the civil court but the courts below without framing issues and without resolving the controversy by way of recording evidence, straight away rejected the plaint. It is quite strange that when appellate court in the earlier round came to the conclusion that the matter between the parties could be resolved by recording of evidence,instead of remanding back the matter to trial court, it dismissed the appeal, leaving the applicants at liberty to file a fresh suit in terms of order 7 Rule 13 of CPC. At the time when the first suit was filed, the licenses in favor of the applicants were intact but they were ousted by the fisheries department in terms of the order dated 28.11.2023, apprehending this malicious action the applicants were agitating their grievance in terms of the licenses, they were not agitating any grievance in terms of declaration for ownership over the public waters. The trial Court rejected the plaint that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under section 56(d) of SRA and SFO, this is not so, the civil court being the Court of Ultimate Jurisdiction is competent to examine whether the action of the authority was in accordance with law or not, as such the suit was competent.
14. This view is fortified by the dictum laid down by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Samiullah and another Versus Fazle Malik and another reported in P L D 1996 Supreme Court 827, wherein the Honorable Apex Court has held as under:
It is a well‑established principle that even where the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred and conferred upon Special Tribunals, Civil Courts being Courts of ultimate jurisdiction would be competent to examine the acts of such forums to see whether their acts are in accordance‑ with law or/are illegal or even mala fide. The learned Judge in the Chambers of the High Court was, therefore, legally correct to hold that for the determination of allegations as to whether the impugned orders are in accordance with law or/are even mala fide, the filing of the written statements and recording of evidence was a sine qua none. The impugned order of remand for the purpose was thus perfectly valid and warrants no interference by us in our Constitutional jurisdiction.
15. The Civil Court enjoys powers to nip in the bud the incompetent litigation, it is essential to burry incompetent litigation at its inception, the conditions precedent to exercise power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are stringent. To decide the fate of a suit under order VII Rule 11 CPC averments in the plaint must be read as a whole to determine whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., if the averments in the plaint ex-facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under any law; the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. Based on the principle stated above, in the present case, if the plaint is read as a whole the averments made therein are deemed to be correct, ex facie the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, that the suit was not barred either under SFO or SRA. the Courts below drawn an incorrect conclusion, in that regard. The ingredients of Rule 11 Order VII CPC were not attracted in the present case, and required adjudication on merits. It is a settled law even if one prayer is maintainable, the suit will proceed.The question of entitlement of Respondents No 10 and 11 needs determination, which exercise can only be undertaken by way of recording evidence, so also the entitlement of Petitioners being fishermen of their fishing rights and cancellation of license prior to expiration of lease period, which per rules can be done only when there is contravention of the any of the provisions of the Ordinance and Rules required adjudication through trial.
16. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Rehmat Begum Versus Mehfooz Ahmed and others reported in P L D 2024 Supreme Court 1108 has enunciated the following principle of law, for dealing with the matters relating to rejection of plaint.
“This is a well-known elucidation of law that the plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Even if one prayer contained in the plaint is found to be maintainable in the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the plaint cannot be rejected in part. What is essentially required is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that not only a right has been infringed in a manner that entitles him to a relief but also that when he approached the Court, the right to seek that relief was in subsistence. Nothing more than the averments of the plaint have to be seen for the purposes of adjudicating whether the plaint unveiled any cause of action. However, the dearth of proof or weakness of proof in the circumstances of the case does not furnish any justification for coming to the conclusion that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint, because for the rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the Court cannot take into consideration pleas raised by the defendants in the suit, as at that stage, the pleas raised by the defendants are only contentions in the proceedings, unsupported by any evidence on record. However, if there is some material apart from the plaint which is admitted by the plaintiff, the same can also be looked into and taken into consideration by the Court while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Moreover, the Court may, in exceptional cases, consider the legal objections in the light of averments of the written statement but the pleading as a whole cannot be taken into consideration for the rejection of plaint. The Court has to presume the facts stated in the plaint as correct for the determination of such application. In case of any mixed questions of law and facts, the right methodology and approach is to allow the suit to proceed to the written statement and discovery phases and to determine the matter either by framing preliminary issues or through a regular trial. This rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of the plaint or a piecemeal rejection, as the concept of partial rejection is seemingly incongruous to the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. However; it should be kept in mind that astute drafting for creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law, and a clear right to sue ought to be shown in the plaint. Where there is a joinder of multiple causes of action, and at least some of these causes could potentially lead to a decree, a plea of demurrer cannot be admitted to reject the plaint. Similarly, if there are several parties and the plaint discloses a cause of action against one or more of them then, too, the plaint cannot be rejected, as what is required in law is not the reading of the plaint in fragments but reading it as a whole. The Court is under an obligation to give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint, but before rejecting, it must determine whether litigation of such a case will be absolutely vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.
5. Undoubtedly, the plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., at any stage of the proceedings to culminate the civil action, on the philosophy that incompetent lawsuits should be buried to their inception in order to save the precious time of the Court which may be consumed and dedicated in serious and genuine litigation, but at the same time, this underlying principle does not give license to invoke the same in every lawsuit just to prolong or drag the proceedings with male fide intention or ulterior motives. On the contrary, such application must articulate, distinctly, how and in which condition, as enumerated under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., is the plaint liable to be rejected, rather than filing it with sweeping or trivial allegations to waste the valuable time of the Court. In the present case, the application was filed by the petitioner in the Trial Court on the grounds that (1) the suit is not maintainable under law; (2) the suit is barred under Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the Act; (3) the jurisdiction of the Court is lacking one under the Act and that the Court could not entertain the suit; (4) the suit is not maintainable under law even if the jurisdiction is assumed, and; (5) the suit is barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and other provisions of laws and no effective decree could be passed in a case where jurisdiction does not lie.
17. For what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the suit of the applicants was competent and was not barred by the law, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are illegal, infirm and perverse, the Courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them which resulted in miscarriage of justice, thus invited indulgence of this court under its supervisory powers vested under section 115 of CPC. Consequently the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge Kandhkot in Suit No.58/2024 and Order dated 16-01-2025 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District Judge-II Kandhkot in Civil Appeal No.2/2025are set aside, the Suit filed by the applicants stands revived, trial court is directed to proceed with the matter afresh, by issuing notices to the parties, decide the same expeditiously by framing issues as to the entitlement of the applicants and defendants/respondents No.10 and 11 for fishing rights in public waters of Ghouspur Block. The applicants may file any application for amendment of pleadings if so advised, which shall be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
This Revision Application stands disposed of along with pending applications.
JUDGE
Asghar/P.A