Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 3011 and 3012 in Suit No 291 of 1985, decided on 17th September, 1986.
‑‑‑O. VII, R. 11‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑Requirements for invoking the provisions of 0. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.‑‑Provisions of O. VII, R. 11, C . P. C . , held, could be invoked if there was no room for any other possible approach to the case and no triable issue was made out in case, or suit was clearly hit by any mandatory provisions of law justifying rejection of plaint‑‑In absence of such elements being satisfactorily spelt out, plaint could not be rejected.
Hassan Zafar for Plaintiff.
B.M. Bangash for Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that a 'SANAD' issued in favour of defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 has been issued without authority by the Defendant No.5 and is not binding on any one and that it is in excess of the power enjoyed by the issuing authority. The plaintiff further claims that he is in possession of the land since 1950 that he had purchased this land from one Naib‑Subedar Abdul Ghafoor son of Noor Muhammad for a consideration of Rs.20,000, that he further raised construction on this plot and has been in continuous occupation and enjoyment of the property since 1950. He complains that some time in 1974 this 'SANAD' has been issued to the Defendants of which he had no knowledge till 1982, when the construction on the plot was demolished and his possession was disturbed. In this connection proceedings under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. are pending in the Court of S.D.M. Malir.
The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 who are the 'SANAD' holders, have filed this application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and the main contention raised by Mr.B.M. Bangash learned counsel appearing for them is that the suit is barred under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act (2) Cantonment Act (3) a/sec. 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1976 and (4) a/sec. 11, C.P.C. During the arguments the learned counsel further contained that on his own showing in the plaint, the plaintiff has purchased the land from a person, who himself had no title, that the plaintiff is an encroacher and cannot file a suit for the protection of an area on which he is a trespasser as against the owners/Sanad holders.
The arguments of .the learned counsel for the defendants, at first seem to be attractive, but if the relief claimed in the plaint is read carefully and plea of adverse possession in the plaint even if superficially examined, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action justifying rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. can be invoked in such circumstances where there is no room for any other possible approach to the case and no triable issue made out in the plaint or the suit is clearly hit by any mandatory provisions of law justifying rejection of the plaint. None of these elements can satisfactorily be spelt out in the present situation.
In the circumstances, I would dismiss this application (C.M.A. No. 3011/85) under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. without order as to costs.
C.M.A No. 3012/1985:
In view of the dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Mr. B.M. Bangash prays for time for filing written statement. Mr. Zafar has no objection. Mr. Bangash can file written‑statement before the Registrar within two weeks.
A.A./B‑27/K Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer