Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Order VII, Rule 11 & Order XXIII, Rule 1(3)—Rejection of plaint—Bar on filing a subsequent suit without permission of the court—Withdrawal of earlier suit—Court held that under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) C.P.C., if a plaintiff withdraws a suit without explicit permission from the court to file a fresh suit, they are precluded from instituting a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. The mere mention of an intention to file a fresh suit in the withdrawal statement does not constitute court permission. The trial court must pass a formal order granting such liberty. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Section 12(1)—Preclusion from filing a subsequent suit—Prohibition against re-litigation on the same cause of action—Court emphasized that Section 12(1) C.P.C. bars the plaintiff from filing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action if precluded by rules, reinforcing the prohibition under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) C.P.C. (c) Contract law ----Sale agreement—Validity of agreements based on expected allotments—The court noted that the agreement of sale executed on the basis of an anticipated allotment of property is void under the law. In the instant case, the agreement was executed in 1990, while the plot was allotted to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ashraf (late) in 2012, rendering the agreement invalid. (d) Precedents ----Binding effect of judicial precedents—The court referred to the precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, affirming that failure to obtain court permission for filing a fresh suit precludes the plaintiff from instituting subsequent litigation on the same cause of action. Disposition: The appeal was dismissed, and the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. by the trial court was upheld. The court found no merits in the appellant’s claim, emphasizing that the suit was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) C.P.C. and Section 12(1) C.P.C. Cited Cases: • Bashir Ahmed and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport (PLD 2021 SC 373). • Saeed Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khalid and 3 others (2018 CLC 648 Islamabad).

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11 & O.XIV, R.2---Defamation---Recovery of damages---Rejecting of plaint--- Preliminary issue---Plaintiff was a government official who assailed defamatory statement made by defendant against him---Trial Court after hearing parties on legal issues, dismissed the suit---Validity---Where an issue of law and facts had arisen in plaint of the suit and Trial Court believed that case or part thereof on the issue of law only, Trial Court under the provision of O.XIV, R.2, C.P.C., could decide the issue related to (a) jurisdiction of the court or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force---To invoke provisions of O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C., no evidence could be looked into and conclusion that the suit was barred under the law must be drawn from averments made in the plaint---Allegation of defamation was a mixed question of law and facts---Such issue could not be tried as a preliminary issue in other words, such issues could be those where no evidence was required and on the basis of plain reading of plaint of suit, it appeared that jurisdiction of Court was barred, then the Court could decide such issue of law at the first stance---High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded the suit to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Order for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be passed on the basis of record available with the Court, which includes (i) Pleadings as defined in Rule 1 of Order VI CPC; (ii) Documents attached with plaint under Rule 14 of Order VII CPC; (iii) Form No.14 as required under Order IX-A, stating separately admitted and disputed facts; (iv) Documents attached with the written statement or relied upon by the defendant under Order VIII CPC; (v) Examination and proceedings under Order X CPC; (vi) Any admissions made by parties during the proceedings of a suit under Order XII CPC; (vii) Documents produced by parties under Rule 1 of Order XIII CPC.(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908):----O. VII, R. 11(d)—Scope and interpretation after amendment—Rejection of plaint—Agreement to sell not attested by two witnesses—Non-fulfilment of mandatory requirements under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Plaint filed on basis of unverified agreement to sell which lacked attesting witnesses—Pleadings did not name any such witnesses, and even written reply failed to remedy defect—Suit held barred by law in terms of O. VII, R. 11(d), CPC as amended by Lahore High Court Notification No. 237/Legis/XI-Y-26, dated 15 August 2018—Court held that post-amendment, “record available with the court” must be considered rather than plaint alone—Trial court and appellate court orders dismissing application under O. VII, R. 11 CPC set aside and plaint rejected accordingly.SIKANDAR ALI v. BADDAR-U-DIN 2019 CLC 1046 ref.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:----Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79—Financial and future obligations—Proof of execution of agreement—Mandatory attestation by two witnesses—Agreement to sell dated 29.12.1998 neither attested nor verified by requisite witnesses—Absence of attesting witnesses fatal to admissibility of the agreement—Pleading lacked any mention of attesting witnesses—Held, in matters involving financial or future obligations, absence of compliance with Articles 17 and 79 renders document inadmissible and suit unsustainable—Trial held to be futile exercise.Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Amin PLD 2011 SC 241 ref.(c) Constitutional Law:----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 202—Rule-making power of High Court—Interpretation of procedural law—High Court empowered to frame rules regulating practice and procedure of subordinate courts—Rules and amendments made under Art. 202 held to have binding effect—Amended clause (d) of O. VII, R. 11 CPC expands scope of rejection by considering “record available with the court” instead of plaint alone—Held, purpose is to curb frivolous litigation at inception stage.(d) Legal Interpretation:----Term “barred by law”—Meaning and scope—As interpreted through Black’s Law Dictionary and judicial lexicons, term includes legal impediments preventing continuation of claim—Used in context of limitation, res judicata, and evidentiary bars—Court held that where document forming basis of suit is legally inadmissible, suit is barred by law and must be rejected under O. VII, R. 11(d), CPC.----Disposition:Writ Petition accepted—Orders dated 13.02.2019 and 22.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge and Additional District Judge set aside—Application under O. VII, R. 11 CPC allowed—Plaint rejected.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Mutation, knowledge of---Not challenged in life time---Suit barred by time---Scope---Petitioner's suit for declaration, cancellation of revenueentries and permanent injunction was contested by respondents/defendants by filing writtenstatement---Respondents' application for rejection of plaint had been dismissed by Qazi---Majlis-e-Shoora accepted revision petition filed by respondents and rejected the plaint---Petitioners contended that issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and facts whichcould be decided on the basis of evidence---Validity---Averments contained in plaint werepresumed to be correct---Petitioner had challenged the mutation entries after 48 years---Plaint showed that predecessor of the petitioners was well aware about impugned mutationentries but they did not challenge said mutation in their life time---Suit appeared formstatement in plaint was barred by limitation---Constitutional petition was dismissedaccordingly.Nazar Gul v. Islam and 3 others 1998 SCMR 1223; Hakim Muhammad Buta Vs.Habib Ahmed and other PLD 1985 SC 153; Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs FloridaBuilders (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2012 SC 247; Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdul Rehman and others 1995SCMR 459; Noor Din and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2014SCMR 513 and Muhammad Rustam and other v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR299 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Nature and Scope---Order VII, R.11 of CivilProcedure Code, 1908, laid down an independent remedy for defendant to challengemaintainability of suit instead of contesting the same on merit.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Object---Object of O.VII, R.11 of Civil ProcedureCode was primarily to save the parties from the rigorous or frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings.Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif PLD2008 SC 371 rel.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action and limitation---Stage to decide---Court could exercise power at any stage of suit before passing of judgment for decidingapplication under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C., 1908, relating to clause (a) & (d) and same could beexercised power before filing of written statement.(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action, existence of---Duty of Court---Scope---Order VII, R.11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 casts duty on court to perform itsobligation if a plaint was hit by any clause of the said provisions, even without filing ofapplication by defendants---While deciding application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., it was tobe considered whether plaint disclosed a real cause of action or something purelyillusory/imaginary / hollowed had been stated.(f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Plaint, exclusiveness of---Scope---For O.VII, R.11 ofCivil Procedure Code, it was plaint alone which was to be considered.Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Amin through L.Rs. and others 2008 SCMR 913 rel

Summary: The provisions of Section 42 were misconstrued by Courts below. A plaint could only be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC if it is barred by law. None of the provisions of law was cited by respondents counsel and/or find mention in the orders/judgment of two Courts below whereby a plaint of the suit of the appellant could be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC. The appellant had a cause of action on account of a threat to her property in view of alleged unlawful and illegal construction beingraised on the adjacent plot.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Suit for declaration and injunction---"Rejection" and "dismissal" of plaint---Distinction---Trial Court dismissed the suit on application filed by defendant under O.VIIR.11, C.P.C.---Validity---Words 'rejection of plaint' mentioned in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. meantthat if ingredients in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were available in plaint, the Court had jurisdictionand power to reject the plaint---"Dismissal of suit" connoted that it was a final determinationof controversy between the parties and Trial Court could dismiss the suit only after holdinginquiry and recording of evidence---Rejection of plaint provided or opened door for plaintiffsto fresh suit but in case of dismissal of suit no fresh suit could be filed and only statutoryremedy was available against dismissal order---High Court modified order passed by TrialCourt as one passed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and plaint was rejected---Revision wasdismissed accordingly.

Summary: PLJ 2019 AJK 66 Present M Tabassum Aftab Alvi CJ MUHAMMAD ANSAR and another - - Appellants versus GENERAL MANAGER MIAN MUHAMMAD SUGAR MILL LIMITED MAGHLOORA and 19 others - - Respondents Civil Appeal No 135 of 2017 decided on 1992018 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 149 O VII R11 - - Suit for recovery perpetual and mandatory injunction - - Deficiency of Court Fee - - Application for rejection of plaint - - Allowed - - Appeal and Application for extension of time for Court fee - - Limitation - - Challenge to - - Neither appellants supply deficiency within 10 days nor moved any application for extension of time - - It further reflects from record that Appellant No 2 was present on 10th September 2018 however neither deficiency of Court fee was supplied nor any application for extension was moved - - As observed earlier appellants were granted 10 days time to supply deficiency on 30th July 2018 who did not bother to comply with order - - Even after passing about one year they again remained mum for 01 month and 10 days who failed to make up deficiency on 10th September 2018 - - Appellants were guilty of contumacy and positive mala - fides in putting deficient Court fee alongwith memorandum of appeal only to drag other side - - Facts of authorities referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for appellants are distinguishable which are not helpful to his clients - - Appeal was dismissed [Pp 68 70 71] A B C D 2003 SCR 221 PLD 1984 SC 289 1998 CLC 1851 ref Mr Khuram Saif Ali Advocate for Appellants Nemo for Respondents Nos1 to 3 5 7 10 and 12 to 20 Sheikh Masood Iqbal Advocate for Respondents Nos4 6 8 9 and 11Judgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: Conclusion that the plaint does not disclose any cause ofaction and it is also barred by Section 42 of the SpecificRelief Act and Section 29, 30 and 60 of the Sindh MentalHealth Act 2013 including all enabling provisions of thesame Act. The moved under Order7 Rule 11 C.P.C is allowed and the plaint is rejected.Consequently, the injunction application is also dismissed.

Summary: CMA filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaintSections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act , the Easement Act, 1882 and Transfer of Property Act are discussed.Plain is rejected. --- Summary:This case revolves around a dispute between the plaintiff, H. Nizam Din & Sons (Pvt.) Limited, and defendants No. 1 & 2, Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (DHA) and DA Marina Club Karachi. The plaintiff, a catering and event management company, had a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with defendants No. 1 & 2, allowing them to organize events at a specific premises, referred to as "Area III" at D.A. Marina Club. The plaintiff sought various reliefs, including the declaration that the MoU constituted a lease and that they could not be evicted without due process.Facts:The plaintiff is a catering and event management company with a good reputation.Defendants No. 1 & 2 entered into an MoU with the plaintiff, allowing them to organize events at "Area III" of D.A. Marina Club for a period of three years, starting from 01.05.2013 to 30.04.2016.The plaintiff made substantial investments in the premises, including the installation of permanent fixtures and an office.In May 2016, the plaintiff proposed an increase in rent, but on 8.8.2016, defendants No. 1 & 2 threatened eviction.The plaintiff filed a suit to prevent forceful eviction and sought various reliefs.Issues:Whether the MoU between the parties constituted a lease or a license.Whether the plaintiff had the right to seek relief against eviction. --- Court's Decision:The court analyzed the terms of the MoU and concluded that it constituted a license rather than a lease. The plaintiff did not have exclusive possession of the premises, and the agreement did not confer the rights of a lessee upon them. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable, and it was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the plaintiff's rights were more akin to those of a licensee, and their remedy, if any, was to seek damages for breach of contract, not an injunction to prevent eviction.Key Legal Principles:Distinction between a lease and a license.A license is a personal privilege with no interest in the land.Exclusive possession is a crucial factor in determining a lease.Relief against eviction may not be available to a licensee.The court relied on various clauses of the MoU to determine the nature of the agreement.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------O. VIIR. 11--Rejection of plaint--Principle--Consideration--Validity--Before rejecting aplaint Court had to see that when averment made therein if accepted in mode form do not entitleplaintiff to a relief, it can reject plaint--Provisions O.VII R. 11, CPC can only be invoked, if thereis no room for any other approach to case and that no triable issue is made out in case. [P. 18]ACivil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------O. VII R. 11--Rejection of plaint--Principle--Contents of plaint and written statement--Validity--Courts are required to see mainly averments of plaint avoiding deeper examination ofcontents of written statement. [P. 19] BCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------O. VII R. 11--Rejection of plaint--Principle--Validity--Plaint cannot be rejected gradually--Plaint can only be rejected if all reliefs claimed by plaintiff are barred under law--If one prayer ismaintainable, plaint cannot be rejected--Under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. [P. 19] C