REHMAN SHAH vs MUZAFFAR SHAH O — 2023 MLD 1460 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

REHMAN SHAH VS MUZAFFAR SHAH O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Relevant facts to be looked into by court---Relevant facts that need to be looked into for deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., are the averments in the plaint; however, besides averments made in the plaint other material available on record which on its own strength is legally sufficient to completely refute the claim of plaintiff can also be pondered into for the purpose of rejection of the plaint----Similarly, if a party who approaches the Court, with malice intention by concealing material facts which if brought before the Court, the plaintiff would have been out of Court having no cause of action, and also in a situation where respondents brought any such fact in the notice of the Court the same can also be judiciously mused while deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., because a plaintiff should not be allowed to drag the other party into a frivolous and non-sensical litigation---Basic objective, aim and design of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., is that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at its inception so that no further time is allowed to be wasted over what is bound to collapse---Suit may be specifically barred by law and in such an event, the matter would come under the express terms of clause (d) of R. 11 of O. VII of the C.P.C., but even in a case where a suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has got an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint at any stage of trial and in such a situation formalities should be avoided to reject it, thus, O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., is not exhaustive---Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction can nip frivolous litigation in the bud---It is the duty of the Court to thoroughly examine the plaint at the very inception so that the parties could be saved from the agony of frivolous litigation in order to save the precious time of the court because a Court should not behave like a mute observer and allow a party to capture the system of justice for an indefinite time. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1460 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case REHMAN SHAH VS MUZAFFAR SHAH O. VII, R. 11---Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Appellant filed suit seeking declaration to be sole owner of the suit land---Appellant in his plaint admitted that the original owner of land in question sold the same to three persons through a sale deed---Said sale-deed was pre-empted by appellant and predecessor of respondents---Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties and both appellant and predecessor of respondents were declared to be entitled to get 5 kanal each, hence appellant could not claim being sole owner of 10 kanal land which was pre-empted by appellant as well as predecessor of respondents---Thus, there existed zero probability that appellant could get required decree because even if claim of appellant that he had paid the whole consideration amount and expended huge money during litigation for the same land was deemed to be correct even then appellant could not be declared owner of land and respondents who were lawful owners of land in view of the decree could not be prohibited to enjoy the fruits of their land, therefore, both the Courts below had accurately rejected the suit under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Appeal was dismissed.

REHMAN SHAH vs MUZAFFAR SHAH O — 2023 MLD 1460 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD