MUHAMMAD YASIN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O — 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O. VII, R. 11---application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C for rejection of plaint---Objective---Court, powers and duties of---Inherent jurisdiction---If a party who approaches the Court, with mala fide intention by concealing material facts, which if brought before the Court, the plaintiff would have been out of Court for having no cause of action and also in a situation here defendants brought any such fact in the notice of the Court, the same can also be judiciously pondered upon while deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., because a plaintiff should not be allowed to grind the other party into false and frivolous litigation---Basic objective and aim of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., is that an incompetent suit should be laid to 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 terms of clause (d) of R.11, O. VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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 silent observer and allow a party to capture the whole system of justice for an indefinite time. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O. VII, R. 11(d)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation of document and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Matter sub-judice---Scope and effect---Civil Court rejected the plaint of suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under O.VII, R. 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and appeal preferred by him against the same was also dismissed---Validity---Dispute in the present case was, admittedly, regarding the disputed mutation which had already been raised before the competent forum about two decades ago by way of application for inquiry which was concluded within a year or so vide an inquiry report, wherein it was determined that the disputed mutation was genuinely entered into and executed by the concerned parties; it was further determined in the said inquiry that the petitioner / plaintiff was a fake person and had no concern with the disputed property; meaning thereby the matter remained sub-judice before the competent forum and the petitioner / plaintiff was well aware of all the proceedings but he kept mum after report of the said inquiry because adverse remarks were passed against him and he did not challenge the same before any relevant forum further---Both the Courts below had accurately rejected the plaint under O. VII, R. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O. VII, R. 11---application for rejection of plaint---Determination by the Court---Scope---Relevant facts that need to be looked into for deciding an application under O. VII, R.11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 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. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Scope---Limitation is not to be reckoned as merely a technicality, as doing so would amount to deprive the opposite party of a favour which the law has unequivocally extended to it due to prevailing of certain circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O. VI, R.4 & O. VII, R. 11(d) ---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation of document and permanent injunction---Limitation---Rejection of plaint---Date of knowledge and source of information of alleged fraud, non- disclosure of---Effect---Civil Court rejected the plaint of suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under O. VII, R.11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and appeal preferred by him against the same was also dismissed---Validity---Petitioner / plaintiff did not disclose the date of knowledge and source of information of alleged fraud, which were essential and necessary to be pleaded in the plaint as required by O.VI, R. 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Suit ought to have been filed within six years from the date of arising of cause of action or from the date of knowledge, but it had been instituted after about 21 years of inquiry proceedings, in which subject-matter(disputed mutation) was already settled against the petitioner/ plaintiff---In such scenario, the suit of the petitioner was barred by limitation---Besides, limitation runs even against a void order and if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the petitioner did not associate with the proceedings before the revenue hierarchy, he was bound to explicitly plead the date of his knowledge of alleged fraud, which was lacking in this case, so it could not be said that here in this case the limitation was a mixed question of law and facts---Present case had rightly been adjudged and the petitioner had rightly been non-suited---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD YASIN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL O — 2024 CLC 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC