Fida Muhammad vs Shah Jehan Badshah O — 2024 MLD 684 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Fida Muhammad VS Shah Jehan Badshah O.VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action, disclosure of---Averments of the plaint, analyzing of---Guidelines---Documents not annexed with the plaint---Effect---Suit for recovery of damages etc. against the director/principal of the college for his alleged inability of plaintiff's migration/admission to a foreign university---Trial Court rejected the plaint of the plaintiff allowing the application moved by the defendants, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that the contents of plaint were to be considered as true and the suit was to be decided on merit ---Validity---For disclosure of cause of action, being one of the four grounds contained in the Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is the plaint and the plaint alone that must disclose a cause of action---Phrase 'cause of action' is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---A cause of action constitutes bundle of facts, which if traversed , the plaintiff has to prove---For rejection of a plaint condensed guidelines are: firstly, only requirement is that Court must examine the statement in the plaint prior to taking a decision ;secondly, the contents of the written-statement are not to be examined; thirdly, while carrying out an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, the Court is not denuded of its normal judicial power to critically consider the averments of plaint as well as documents annexed to the plaint---In the present case, in view of the said guideline for the carrying out an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, all the claims (request for migration, issuance of NOC, payments etc.) as averred in the plaint , all which he might prove, the same would not grant success to the petitioner/plaintiff entitling him to a relief including damages for mental Agony---Reason being that the petitioner/plaintiff having opted for admission abroad had nothing to do with mental shock and agony by the respondents---Petitioner/plaintiff had not annexed any documents in respect of the payments he made---Petitioner's plea for recovery of Rs. 7.0 million as fee of lawyer was an unbelievably exorbitant amount of money and miscellaneous expenses were not supported by any documentary proof, nor were the details of the damages jotted down in the plaint---No illegality or irregularity was noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below while rejecting plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff---Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

Fida Muhammad vs Shah Jehan Badshah O — 2024 MLD 684 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD