7/11 case remanded Cause of action was clear

7/11 case remanded Caus of action was clear

2024 C L C 1386

[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]

Before Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J

MUNIR AHMED----Petitioner

Versus

ALI RAZA and 2 others----Respondents

Civil Revision Petition No.(s) 63 of 2021, decided on 5th April, 2024.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VII, R. 11(a) & O. XIV, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Petitioner / plaintiff filed revision as his suit was rejected under O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which judgment was maintained by the District Court---Validity---It was the case of the petitioner that he was recorded owner and in possession of the land in dispute; National Highway Authorities (NHA) had constructed the road while a watercourse towards the northern side of the NHA existed---Revenue extracts appended with the plaint showed ownership of the petitioner in column 11 of relevant Khasra---Official respondents did not dispute ownership of the petitioner in the record of rights---Regarding " cause of action", contents of the plaint manifested that the petitioner had disclosed a cause of action clause, which was apparent in relevant para of the plaint, as such, the provisions of O.VII, R.11(a), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would not be attracted in the present case---Moreover, the documents appended with the plaint reflected that the petitioner was the recorded owner of the land in dispute and the burden was upon the petitioner to substantiate his legal character and right enshrined under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, by adducing evidence at the Trial Court which was not a purely legal question, thus, the Courts below had erred in law while not dilating upon said aspect---Furthermore, O.XIV, R.1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, demonstrates that it is a prime obligation of the Trial Court to frame issues of law and facts after receiving the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter decide the legal issue at first instance under sub-rule (2) of O. XIV, C.P.C., but in the present case Trial Court had not followed the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, thus it committed an illegality and irregularity---Impugned order/judgment and decrees of the Courts below depicted that they had misinterpreted the provision of O. VII, R.11(a), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is a procedural provision---Trial Court had not followed the procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, while delivering the impugned order and decree in a cursory and mechanical manner, thus the same were not sustainable in eyes of law---High Court set-aside the impugned orders and decrees and directed that the application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., would be deemed pending before the Trial Court, which would frame issues of law and facts in view of the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law---Revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed accordingly.

       Pakistan Oil Company Limited v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., PLD 1991 Kar. 365 and Mst. Iqbal Begum v. Farooq Inayat and others PLD 1993 Lah. 183 ref.

       Muhammad Nasir Marri for Petitioner.

       Faheem Abro for Respondent No.1.

       Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

 

اہم نکات:

1. دعویٰ مسترد کرنے کا دائرہ کار:

آرڈر VII، رول 11(a)، سی پی سی کے تحت دعویٰ کو مسترد کرنا تب ہی ممکن ہے جب دعویٰ کے متن میں وجہ دعویٰ (Cause of Action) مکمل طور پر ظاہر نہ ہو۔ اس کیس میں مدعی نے واضح وجہ دعویٰ پیش کی تھی، اس لیے دعویٰ مسترد کرنا درست نہیں تھا۔

2. ملکیت کا ثبوت:

مدعی نے ریونیو ریکارڈ کے ذریعے اپنی زمین کی ملکیت ثابت کی تھی، جسے سرکاری ریکارڈ میں چیلنج نہیں کیا گیا۔

3. عدالتی ذمہ داری:

ٹرائل کورٹ پر لازم تھا کہ آرڈر XIV، رول 1 اور 2، سی پی سی کے مطابق مقدمے کے قانونی اور فیکچوئل مسائل کو فریم کرے اور پہلے قانونی نکات کا فیصلہ کرے۔

4. عدالتی غلطی:

نچلی عدالتوں نے آرڈر VII، رول 11(a) کی تشریح غلط کی اور مقدمہ مسترد کرتے وقت قانونی طریقہ کار کی پیروی نہیں کی۔

5. ہائی کورٹ کا حکم:

ہائی کورٹ نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کالعدم قرار دے کر معاملہ دوبارہ ٹرائل کورٹ کو بھیج دیا، تاکہ قانونی اور فیکچوئل مسائل کو درست طریقے سے حل کیا جا سکے۔

6. مدعی کا حق:

مدعی کو موقع دیا جانا ضروری تھا کہ وہ اپنے دعویٰ کو شواہد کے ذریعے ثابت کرے، کیونکہ یہ محض قانونی نہیں بلکہ فیکچوئل معاملہ بھی تھا۔

7. نظریہ قانون:

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ آرڈر VII، رول 11(a) ایک "پروسیجرل پروویژن" ہے، جسے مناسب طریقے سے لاگو کرنا ضروری ہے۔

یہ نکات عدالتی کارروائی میں قانونی تقاضوں کی اہمیت اور مدعی کے حقوق کے تحفظ کو اجاگر کرتے ہیں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.