IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Civil Revision Application No.179 of 2025
[ Hasnain Munir vs. Muhammad Faisal Lakhani ]
M/s. S.M. Jahangeer Akhtar and Muhammad Aslam, advocates for the applicant.
Date of hearing & Order : 10.03.2026.
O R D E R
ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J; Through this Civil Revision, the applicant, being the defendant in a Summary Suit, has challenged the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned XII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, in Summary Suit No.175/2022, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a Summary Suit against the applicant/defendant, asserting that the respondent is the proprietor of M/s Aqa Cell General Trading (L.L.C), a concern engaged in the cellular phone trade in Dubai and Karachi since 2010. The applicant was appointed as General Manager of the said company in 2014, entrusted with the management of overall corporate affairs, including bank accounts and cash receipts, and was fully conducting business activities in Dubai on behalf of the respondent. In 2020, it was revealed to the respondent that the applicant, during the course of his employment, committed fraud, misappropriation, and breach of trust, thereby embezzling a sum of Rs. 1.877 Million from the company. This liability was reportedly admitted by the applicant via a formal document executed between the parties, wherein the applicant accepted responsibility for the embezzled amount and agreed to its restitution. Subsequently, the applicant issued two cheques, one of which was dishonored upon presentation; consequently, FIR No. 550 of 2022 was registered under Section 489-F of the PPC at P.S. North Nazimabad, following which the instant summary suit was filed for the recovery of the said amount.
3. Upon service of summons, the applicant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was duly contested by the respondent. After hearing both parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts, being based primarily on surmises and conjectures. He further contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the documents placed on record as a whole, instead erroneously taking them into consideration in piecemeal. Counsel further maintains that the learned Trial Court failed to apply its judicious mind while adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also contends that the learned Trial Court erred by failing to consider that the respondent placed no documentary evidence on record pertaining to the alleged commission of fraud by the applicant, which purportedly resulted in the execution of the alleged forged agreement dated 11.11.2022. Furthermore, he contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the dictum laid down by the superior Courts on the legal points involved in the summary suit. Consequently, he prays that the instant Revision Application may be allowed as prayed for.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the material. I have gone through the application under order VII rule 11 CPC filed by the applicant, the grounds taken by the applicant in his application can only be adjudicated after framing of issue and leading evidence. No ground as contemplated in order VII rule 11 CPC has been taken by applicant in his application. The rejection of a plaint under order VII rule 11 CPC is an exception and must be exercised sparingly only when the plaint on its plain reading discloses no cause of action or barred by any law.
In a summary Suit under order XXXVII CPC, where the object is to ensure expeditious disposal of suits based on negotiable instruments or written contracts, the mechanism is not mend to substitute the regular process of trial unless strictly warranted. There are plethora of judgments of apex Courts where it has been emphasized that rejection of plaint at initial stage should not be resorted to where factual controversies exists, and the plaint discloses cause of action requires adjudication. Therefore, in a summary suit unless the conditions under order VII rule 11 CPC are squarely met from the face of plaint alone, the rejection of plaint would amount to denial of the right to be heard and is contrary to the spirt of fair trial under article 10A of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Mere defences raised in leave to defend application or the existence of disputed question of facts do not warrant rejection of the plaint.
6. The principle governing rejection of plaint under order VII rule 11 CPC require that such rejection must be confined to the four corners of the plaint alone. The power to reject the plaint must be exercised consciously and only in clear cases where the plaint is barred by any law or do not disclose cause of action. No litigant should be deprived of his right to be heard unless the legal bar is explicit and insurmountable on the face of plaint. A summary suit under order XXXVII CPC though intended for expeditious disposal, still requires the Court to respect procedural fairness, and any attempt to reject the plaint without fulfilling the strict requirements of order VII rule 11 CPC would violate the litigant constitutional guarantee of access of justice. Courts must, therefore, refrain from denying trial unless the plaint is patently and unequivocally barred by law, a principle applicable with equal force to summary proceedings. The summary procedure is designed to facilitate expeditious dispensation of justice and not to short-circuit it. Issues which necessitate evidence and adjudication on merits cannot be stifled at the threshold by resort to technical objections.[1]
7. It may be observed that rejection of a plaint, particularly in a summary suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C., is not a discretion to be exercised lightly. The Courts are under a constitutional obligation to safeguard the right to fair trial and due process as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution, which requires that every litigant be afforded a meaningful opportunity of hearing unless the claim is clearly barred by law. The success or failure of a suit is to be determined through proper adjudication and not at the threshold by a mechanical invocation of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The settled principle, as consistently affirmed in both local and comparative jurisprudence, is that unless the plaint is ex facie barred by law or wholly devoid of a cause of action, it must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law. Any departure from this principle would amount to denial of justice and misuse of the summary procedure. In the present case, the dispute between the parties involves questions of fact which require recording of evidence and adjudication on merits; therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., filed by the applicant for rejection of the plaint, was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court.
8. Upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality, material irregularity, or infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi-East as the same is well-reasoned and based on a correct appreciation of the law and facts, as such, the same does not warrant any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant Civil Revision is hereby dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Naveed PA