Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 582‑D of 1983, decided on 3rd May, 1983.

‑ O. VII, r. 11‑Plaint, rejection of‑Trial Court ought to confine its examination to plaint simpliciter without having recourse to written statement‑Court below, held, erred in law in rejecting plaint after taking into consideration objections raised in written state ment.‑[Plaint].

Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioners.

Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Respondents Nos. 3 to 7.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1983.

This revision petition arises out of the judgment, dated 27th March. 1983 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners filed a suit on 26th October, 1982 in the civil Court, Sargodha, for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The respondents contested the suit on merits and also took up the preliminary objection in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as, the petitioners, did not challenge the order, dated 19th September, 1982 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sargodha for the restoration of Khal to the petitioners land. The learned Civil Judge by his order, dated 2nd January, 1983 rejected the plaint under Order V1I, rule 11, C. P. C. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 27th March, 1983. Hence, this Revision Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below have erred in law in rejecting the plaint after taking into consideration the objections raised in the written statement. It is submitted that in terms of Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C., the trial Court ought to have confined its examination to the plaint simpliciter without having recourse to the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this proposition of law. I am also inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on this question of law. On this short ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the revision is accepted. The result is that the trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

5. The parties are directed to appear before Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, Civil Judge, Sargohda for further proceedings on 10th May, 1983 on which date he shall decide in the first instance the application of the peti tioners for the grant of temporary injunction in accordance with law. In the interest of justice status quo is granted upto the said date only without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties. The learned Civil Judge shall decide the stay application independently and without being influenced by any observation including the ad interim stay order granted by this Court.

There shall be no order as to costs.

M.A.K. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.