Defence Housing Authority Lahore vs Farzand Ali O — 2026 YLR 1357 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.

Defence Housing Authority Lahore VS Farzand Ali O. VII, R. 11 & O. XIV, Rr. 2 & 5---Rejection of plaint---Limitation, point / ground of---Limitation being mixed question of law and fact---Plaint filed by appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation---Held: Order VII, R.11 C.P.C. spell out the parameters upon which plaint can be rejected---For exercising such provision only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and no other document can be considered; an exception to the rule is that the documents, which are admitted between the parties can be looked into by the court while exercising its power under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C.---In the present case, from the bare reading of the contents of the plaint no question of limitation arose---It might be an objection on part of the respondents/defendants that the suit was barred by limitation, however, the said objection could have been translated into an issue to be framed under O.XIV, R.5, C.P.C. and thereupon the said issue could have been treated as a preliminary issue under O.XIV, R.2, C.P.C., however in either of the cases, evidence had to be led by the parties and thereupon such an issue could be decided, which in the present case had not been done---The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which requires recording of evidence, therefore, the same cannot be decided keeping in view the respective pleadings of parties---In the present case, it was clear and obvious that from bare reading of the contents of the plaint it could not be figured out that the claim put forth by the appellant was barred by time---Even otherwise, the application filed under O.VII R.11 C.P.C. by the respondents / defendants was silent so as to highlight that how the suit was barred by time---Said facts clearly demonstrated that for decision on the stipulation-in-question (limitation), evidence was required to be produced by the parties and thereupon the Court could have given a finding but the Trial Court, in a slipshod and cursory manner, rejected the plaint on the sole ground that the suit was barred by limitation---Thus, the impugned order and decree was not only against facts but was also against law, therefore, the same could not sustain---High Court set-aside the impugned order and decree; resultantly, the suit filed by the appellant would deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, which would re-decide the same on merits and in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Defence Housing Authority Lahore vs Farzand Ali O — 2026 YLR 1357 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR