Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, a plaint can only be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action and if the plaint contains essential facts demonstrating a legal injury, it cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise, a plaint shall be rejected "where it does not disclose a cause of action." This provision functions as a threshold filter to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable claims from being subjected to full trial proceedings. A plaint must discloses, clear legal injury, right enforceable by law, and sufficient factual foundation to warrant judicial examination. Where these elements are present, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is unsustainable and impermissible. Conversely, where a plaint is vague, speculative, or based on irrelevant assertions lacking legal basis, rejection is not only permissible but necessary to prevent judicial abuse. The cause of action doctrine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a procedural safeguard grounded in both domestic and international jurisprudence. Courts must exercise this power judiciously, ensuring that genuine claims proceed while legally unsustainable suits are filtered at inception. In the present case, the trial Court correctly held that the plaint contained a clear assertion of legal rights and legal injury, thus satisfying the requirement of a cause of action but the revisional court ignored this fundamental principle and wrongly exercised jurisdiction by treating the application as it was a final determination of the case. It is established principle of law that while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of plaint must be examined, and not the defence's stance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, a plaint can only be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action and if the plaint contains essential facts demonstrating a legal injury, it cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise, a plaint shall be rejected "where it does not disclose a cause of action." This provision functions as a threshold filter to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable claims from being subjected to full trial proceedings. A plaint must discloses, clear legal injury, right enforceable by law, and sufficient factual foundation to warrant judicial examination. Where these elements are present, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is unsustainable and impermissible. Conversely, where a plaint is vague, speculative, or based on irrelevant assertions lacking legal basis, rejection is not only permissible but necessary to prevent judicial abuse. The cause of action doctrine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a procedural safeguard grounded in both domestic and international jurisprudence. Courts must exercise this power judiciously, ensuring that genuine claims proceed while legally unsustainable suits are filtered at inception. In the present case, the trial Court correctly held that the plaint contained a clear assertion of legal rights and legal injury, thus satisfying the requirement of a cause of action but the revisional court ignored this fundamental principle and wrongly exercised jurisdiction by treating the application as it was a final determination of the case. It is established principle of law that while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of plaint must be examined, and not the defence's stance. 600Murder Reference 2560903.33-

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 01.06.2016 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in C.R. No. 382 of 2010). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Withdrawal of suit---Formal defect--- Proof--- Petitioners / plaintiffs were aggrieved of order passed by High Court declining withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit on the plea of some formal defect---Validity---Petitioners / plaintiffs could not refer to any 'formal defect' which could be: misdescription of partis, incorrect valuation, procedural errors or technical defects, which did not affect merits of the case and if such defects went to the root of the case, the same could not be considered as formal defects---When there was a verdict against petitioners / plaintiffs existing in field, they could not be allowed to step back, without disclosing formal defect in the plaint by using shoulders of Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality, and the law on the subject had correctly and judiciously been appreciated and construed---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Yar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464; Khawaja Bashir Ahmed and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport and others PLD 2021 SC 373 and Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979 rel. Mian Muhammad Tayyib Watto, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Assisted by: Owais Nasir, L.C. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Petitioner filed recovery suit against the respondents---Respondents filed written statement along with application under O.VII, R.11 of the C.P.C., which was dismissed---Revision was filed, which was allowed and plaint was rejected---Validity---In the case in hand, it could not have been held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action or that relief claimed was undervalued---While alleging cause of action, the petitioners in their plaint had specifically narrated this fact---In the case, the plaint contained material facts, cause of action and a valid claim, thereby requiring adjudication on merits---Revisional Court acted in contradiction to established principle of law by rejecting the plaint prematurely---Thus, the order of the Revisional Court was legally unsustainable and must be set aside---Trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. as the plaint disclosed a cause of action---Revisional Court, instead of identifying a jurisdictional defect, reassessed factual matters, which was beyond the scope of S.115, C.P.C.---Revisional Court was not meant to act as a second Court of appeal---Revisional Court could interfere only if there was a jurisdictional defect or material irregularity in the subordinate Court's order---Since no jurisdictional defect was present in the Trial Court's decision, the revisional Court's interference was unwarranted and illegal---Petition was allowed by restoring the plaint before the Trial Court. Read case v. Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 (JK); T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC 2421; Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England 2001 UKHL 16; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Abdul Khaliq (deceased) through L.Rs v. Ch. Rehmat Ali (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2012 SCMR 508; Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Zubair and others 1993 SCMR 2039; President Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Head Office, Islamabad v. Kishwar Khan and others 2022 SCMR 1598; Misree Khan and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others PLD 2025 SC 24; Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 1997 SC 366 and Saleem Malik v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and 2 others PLD 2008 SC 650 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Power of revisional Court---Scope---Revisional Court's power under S.115, C.P.C., is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors---Revisional Court cannot reassess facts or act as an appellate Court---Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and should not be exercised as an appellate power---If the subordinate Court decides a matter on reasonable grounds, interference is unwarranted. Qaisar Qadeer Qureshi for Petitioners. Muhammad Yasir and Muhammad Atif Nawaz for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2025. judgment Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J .--- Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), the petitioners have challenged the consolidated judgment dated 13.10.2020, passed by the learned District Judge Rawalpindi whereby revision petition filed by respondents was accepted by rejecting the plaint of petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. by setting aside order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, however the other revision petition challenging order dated 19.11.2019 of trial court was dismissed being infructuous by the same impugned judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.19,100,000/- along with profit alleging therein that respondent No.1 is running a Real Estate business under the name and style of Syed Property and Builders in different sectors of Bahira Town Housing and Commercial Schemes in Rawalpindi/Islamabad, who is allottee of plots No.539/540 and got site plan approved for construction of commercial building under name and style of Syed Gold Mall and he approached petitioners, under the inducement offer of handsome profit, to invest in his project. Further averred in the plaint that in terms of agreement dated 11.04.2015, petitioner No.2 paid rupees twenty-five million through bank channel, which was duly acknowledged by respondents and as per agreement, respondents had to return the principal amount along with agreed profit. Initially, respondents paid sum of Rs.2.00 million to petitioners as per agreement and also adjusted ten million in shape of a plot in Bahria Enclave, Islamabad but later on, resiled from the agreement. It is also averred in the plaint that respondents themselves issued a statement of account regarding investment, payment and adjustment on 27.04.2018 in which claim of petitioners has been acknowledged, however, the petitioners are continuously contacting respondents and insisting for return of amount but in vain. Along with the plaint, the petitioners also filed an application under Order XXXVIII, C.P.C. to attach the properties of respondents on the ground that respondents are trying to sell out their properties to avoid payment/liabilities while fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the trial court. 3. The respondents filed written statement accompanying application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. that the nature of matter between the parties is contractual and as per agreement respondents are not bound to render accounts, hence petitioners have no cause of action, therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected as suit is not maintainable in its present form and the revisional court rightly passed the impugned judgment. 4. The trial court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. and accepted the application filed by petitioners under Order XXXVIII, C.P.C. vide order dated 14.11.2020. The respondents preferred separate revision petitions before the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, challenging the said order, who vide consolidated judgment dated 13.10.2020 accepted the revision petitions and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by the respondents whereas the other revision petition challenging order dated 19.11.2019 was dismissed being infructuous by the same impugned judgment. 5. Arguments heard. Available record perused. In order to settle down the controversy, the following legal questions arise for determination: 1. Whether the plaint sufficiently discloses a cause of action as required under Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C.? 2. Whether the Revisional Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C.? 3. Whether the Revisional Court's decision is contrary to established judicial precedents? 6. Under Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C., a plaint can only be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action and if the plaint contains essential facts demonstrating a legal injury, it cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Even otherwise, a plaint shall be rejected "where it does not disclose a cause of action." This provision functions as a threshold filter to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable claims from being subjected to full trial proceedings. A cause of action is a bundle of essential facts which, if traversed, give the plaintiff the right to seek legal remedy from a court of competent jurisdiction. These facts must, on their own, give rise to a legally enforceable right and must disclose a legal injury attributable to the defendant. In Read case, Lord LOPES, LJ, observed as follows: "I agree with the definition given by the Master of the Rolls of a cause of action, and that it includes every fact which it would be necessary to prove, if traversed, in order to enable a plaintiff to sustain his action. In the present case the plaintiff could not possibly succeed without proving the assignment; it would be useless for him to prove the mere delivery of the goods. The assignment was therefore part of his cause of action, and that part of the cause of action arose within the City." This principle has become a global cornerstone in civil procedure systems where courts demand that a suit must stand on the face of the plaint alone, without recourse to defence pleas or extraneous evidence at this stage. In T. Arivandandam case, the Indian Supreme Court held as under: - "?The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled?.." Under the United Kingdom Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), courts have similar discretion to strike out a statement of case under Rule 3.4(2)(a), holding that: "The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim." In Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England [2001 UKHL 16], the House of Lords observed that a claim must disclose some reasonable cause of action; otherwise, it is liable to be struck out to protect the integrity of judicial resources. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is similar to Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 7. A plaint must discloses, clear legal injury, right enforceable by law, and sufficient factual foundation to warrant judicial examination. Where these elements are present, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C. is unsustainable and impermissible. Conversely, where a plaint is vague, speculative, or based on irrelevant assertions lacking legal basis, rejection is not only permissible but necessary to prevent judicial abuse. 8. The cause of action doctrine under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. is a procedural safeguard grounded in both domestic and international jurisprudence. Courts must exercise this power judiciously, ensuring that genuine claims proceed while legally unsustainable suits are filtered at inception. 9. This aligns with the constitutional mandate under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973 for fair trial and due process, balanced against the judicial obligation to avoid wastage of court time on meritless claims. 10. In the present case, the trial Court correctly held that the plaint contained a clear assertion of legal rights and legal injury, thus satisfying the requirement of a cause of action but the revisional court ignored this fundamental principle and wrongly exercised jurisdiction by treating the application as it was a final determination of the case. It is established principle of law that while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., only the contents of plaint must be examined, and not the defence's stance. 11. In the case in hand, it could not have been held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that relief claimed is undervalued. While alleging cause of action, the petitioners in their plaint have specifically narrated this fact in para No.16 of the plaint, which is reproduced as under: - "That cause of action firstly accrued on 11.04.2015 when petitioner No.2 entered into agreement with respondents and secondly on 08.04.2016 when petitioner No.2 entered into agreement with respondents, thirdly on 08.10.2016 when the payment became due towards the respondents and lastly two weeks ago when the respondents refused to pay actual investment along with profit to the petitioners, which was settled as per agreement dated 08.04.2016." 12. The authenticity and execution of agreements dated 11.04.2015 and 08.04.2016 between the parties is not denied by the respondents which have been admitted in Para Nos.4, 9 and 10 of their written statement. Relevant condition of the agreement dated 08.04.2016 is reproduced as under: - 13. In this case, the plaint contained material facts, cause of action and a valid claim, thereby requiring adjudication on merits. The Revisional Court acted in contradiction to established principle of law by rejecting the plaint prematurely. Thus, the order of the Revisional Court is legally unsustainable and must be set aside. 14. In the present case, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11, as the plaint discloses a cause of action. The revisional court, instead of identifying a jurisdictional defect, reassessed factual matters, which is beyond the scope of Section 115, C.P.C. A Revisional Court is not meant to act as a second court of appeal. It can interfere only if there is a jurisdictional defect or material irregularity in the subordinate court's order. Since no jurisdictional defect was present in the trial Court's decision, the revisional court's interference was unwarranted and illegal.. In Abdul Khaliq's case it was held as under: - "18. Additionally, the revisional Court in its impugned judgment also seems to have not taken into account the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C which is primary mean for correction of jurisdictional defects in the proceedings or some patent illegality irregularity affecting the merits of the case and not merely for substituting and replacing its own findings with the findings of the appellate Court, unless the same were found to be arbitrary, perverse, fanciful and based on misreading or non-reading of material pieces of evidence, which is not the position of the case in hand." 15. After careful consideration, this Court finds that, the trial court correctly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., as the plaint discloses a valid cause of action whereas the revisional court acted in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. by interfering in a well-reasoned order without identifying a jurisdictional defect, as such the revisional court's decision is illegal and contrary to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly held that if a plaint raises any triable issue, it cannot be rejected summarily as Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. is a harsh provision and should be applied cautiously, only in cases where no legal claim is made out, and suit should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage if there exists even a slight doubt about the cause of action. In President Zarai Taraqiati Bank's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: - "9?.It is well settled that Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. enlightens and expounds rejection of plaint if it appears from the averments articulated in the plaint to be barred by any law or disclosed no cause of action. The court is under obligation to must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint. With the aim of deciding whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the court has to perceive and grasp the averments made in the plaint and the accompanying documents. In case of any mix question of law and facts, the right methodology and approach is to let the suit proceed to written statement and discovery and determine the matter either on framing preliminary issues or regular trial. This Rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of the plaint or in piecemeal as the concept of partial rejection is seemingly incongruous to the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Astute drafting for creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law but a clear right to sue ought to be shown in the plaint?." 17. It would be further advantageous to seek guidance from the case Misree Khan's case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has comprehend the controversy involved in the matter, relevant part is reproduced as under: - 3?Before proceeding further, we take a pause to say that rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to exercising power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are stringent. This Court has consistently held that the averments in the plaint must be read as a whole to determine whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. This includes a bar created due to the lapse of the limitation period. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., if the averments in the plaint ex-facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under any law; the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial..." Same view has also been reiterated by the apex Court in Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 1997 SC 366) and in Saleem Malik v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and 2 others (PLD 2008 SC 650). 18. Admittedly revisional court's power under Section 115, C.P.C. is limited to correct jurisdictional errors. It cannot reassess facts or act as an appellate court. Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and should not be exercised as an appellate power. If the subordinate court has decided a matter based on reasonable grounds, interference is unwarranted. 19. In view of foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted, and the judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed by Revisional Court in C.R. No.302 of 2020 is set aside. Resultantly, plaint of suit is restored before the trial court for adjudication on its own merits after recording evidence of the parties and decision in accordance with law, without prejudice from the findings of this Court. Furthermore, C.R. No. 183 of 2020 which was not decided on merits by the Revisional Court, is hereby restored and shall be deemed pending before the Revisional Court, who shall decide the said application after hearing both parties, strictly in accordance with the law without prejudice from the findings of this Court. The parties shall bear their own costs. JK/S-49/L Petition accepted.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----O. XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Withdrawal of suit---Pre-requisite of ‘formal defect’---Scope and interpretation---Plaintiffs had sought permission to withdraw their suit for declaration with liberty to file afresh, claiming a formal defect---Trial Court had dismissed their suit after recording evidence, and Appellate Court allowed withdrawal and fresh filing---High Court set aside said order---Validity---Held, permission to withdraw a suit for refiling under O. XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2 of the Code requires disclosure of a 'formal defect' or 'sufficient ground'---A ‘formal defect’ is procedural in nature, such as misdescription, incorrect valuation or technical lapse, and must not go to the root of the case---In the present matter, the petitioners failed to plead or point out any formal defect in their application---Withdrawal merely to avoid an adverse decree already passed by the trial court could not be allowed in law---High Court rightly appreciated that such permission was not a matter of right, but judicial discretion based on concrete reasoning, which was lacking in the application. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----O. XXIII, Rr. 1(2)(b), 3---Distinction between withdrawal with permission to refile and simple abandonment---Legal standard---Court reiterated that liberty to refile can only be granted where there is an actual ‘ground’ in law, not merely a litigant’s wish to re-enter proceedings at their convenience---Held, casual or vague reasons, such as “not wishing to proceed for the time being”, do not amount to a valid ground under R. 1(2)(b), and would erode the purpose of R. 1(3), which bars refiling on same cause of action once suit is withdrawn without permission. (c) Judicial Principles ----Finality of judgments---Effect of adverse decree---Held, adverse judgment rendered after full trial cannot be nullified indirectly by withdrawing suit and refiling under pretext of formal defect---Only remedy is to have the decree set aside on merits---Permitting otherwise would undermine judicial finality and encourage abuse of process. Disposition: Leave to appeal refused. Petition dismissed. Citations: Muhammad Yar v. Muhammad Amin (2013 SCMR 464) Khawaja Bashir Ahmed & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Martrade Shipping & Transport (PLD 2021 SC 373) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue (PLD 2003 SC 979)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----O. VII, R. 11(a) & S. 115---- Rejection of plaint—Scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC—Cause of action—Jurisdiction of revisional court—Scope— Held, a plaint can only be rejected under O. VII, R. 11(a) CPC if, on a meaningful reading, it fails to disclose a cause of action—A cause of action is a set of essential facts that, if proved, entitle the plaintiff to relief—In the present case, plaintiffs/petitioners alleged investment in a commercial property project under a written agreement and claimed default by the respondents despite partial repayments and acknowledged liability—Plaint clearly stated facts disclosing a legal injury and enforceable rights, satisfying the threshold for a cause of action—Trial court rightly refused to reject the plaint—Revisional court erroneously reassessed factual disputes and prematurely rejected the plaint without identifying any jurisdictional error—Held, such interference exceeded the revisional court’s authority under S. 115 CPC, which is limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors—Order of revisional court found to be legally unsustainable. Cited Cases: • Read v. Brown [(1888) 22 QBD 128] • T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [AIR 1977 SC 2421] • Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England [2001 UKHL 16] • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) • President Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. v. Kishwar Khan 2022 SCMR 1598 • Misree Khan v. Abdul Ghafoor PLD 2025 SC 24 • Mst. Karim Bibi v. Zubair 1993 SCMR 2039 (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115---- Revisional jurisdiction—Scope and limitation—Interference without jurisdictional error—Illegality— Revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 CPC is supervisory and confined to correction of jurisdictional errors or material irregularities—Revisional court cannot reassess facts or substitute findings of trial court in absence of perversity, misreading or non-reading of evidence—In present case, trial court found that the plaint disclosed a triable issue and valid cause of action—Revisional court’s interference amounted to appellate substitution, thus rendering its decision without lawful basis—Held, revisional court’s order was contrary to settled law and liable to be set aside. Cited Cases: • Abdul Khaliq v. Ch. Rehmat Ali 2012 SCMR 508 • Hakim ud Din v. Faiz Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 870 • Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 1997 SC 366 • Saleem Malik v. PCB PLD 2008 SC 650 (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---- Right to fair trial—Rejection of plaint without trial—Effect— Summary rejection of plaint without considering its averments in totality, and without offering a chance for evidence or adjudication on merit, amounts to denial of fair trial—Such rejection is a drastic remedy that must be exercised cautiously—Where a suit raises even a debatable or triable issue, dismissal at preliminary stage is unwarranted—Held, trial court’s approach upheld as compliant with the right to fair trial under Art. 10A of the Constitution. Disposition: Petition accepted—Revisional court’s judgment dated 13.10.2020 set aside—Plaint restored for trial on merits—Connected revision restored for decision on merits. ------ ''Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, a plaint can only be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action and if the plaint contains essential facts demonstrating a legal injury, it cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise, a plaint shall be rejected "where it does not disclose a cause of action." This provision functions as a threshold filter to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable claims from being subjected to full trial proceedings. A plaint must discloses, clear legal injury, right enforceable by law, and sufficient factual foundation to warrant judicial examination. Where these elements are present, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is unsustainable and impermissible. Conversely, where a plaint is vague, speculative, or based on irrelevant assertions lacking legal basis, rejection is not only permissible but necessary to prevent judicial abuse. The cause of action doctrine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a procedural safeguard grounded in both domestic and international jurisprudence. Courts must exercise this power judiciously, ensuring that genuine claims proceed while legally unsustainable suits are filtered at inception. In the present case, the trial Court correctly held that the plaint contained a clear assertion of legal rights and legal injury, thus satisfying the requirement of a cause of action but the revisional court ignored this fundamental principle and wrongly exercised jurisdiction by treating the application as it was a final determination of the case. It is established principle of law that while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of plaint must be examined, and not the defence's stance.''

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 154---Delayed FIR---Effect---FIR lodged after 31 hours of the occurrence without satisfactory explanation---Injured was shifted to hospital by police personnel within 1 hour and 20 minutes of the occurrence, indicating that the police was informed promptly---Complainant drafted FIR application from district courts without disclosing the scribe, and no steps taken to have statement recorded earlier---Unexplained delay in lodging FIR held to cast serious doubt on authenticity of prosecution story---Possibility of deliberation and fabrication cannot be ruled out. Cited Cases: • Wajahat Ahmed v. The State 2016 SCMR 2073 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) ----Art. 71---Credibility of eyewitnesses---Related witnesses---Improvements and contradictions---Two brothers of deceased appeared as eyewitnesses, but made dishonest improvements and material contradictions regarding presence, sequence of events, and nature of injuries---Eyewitnesses failed to record any statement to police on day of occurrence---Statements inconsistent with medical record---Held, such dishonest improvements discredit witnesses' testimony and render them unreliable. Cited Cases: • Ibrar Hussain v. The State 2007 SCMR 605 • Muhammad Shafique Ahmad v. The State PLD 1986 SC 471 (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Benefit of doubt---Medical and ocular evidence contradiction---Statements of medical officers regarding location and nature of entry and exit wounds contradicted each other and did not align with eyewitness account---Injured remained alive for 18 days but never named assailant to medical officer---No dying declaration recorded---Held, medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version---Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain PLD 2009 SC 53 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 544-A---Compensation---Trial court awarded compensation alongside death penalty---Acquittal on appeal rendered such compensation and conviction legally unsustainable. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---Motive---Previous enmity---Motive set forth in FIR was registration of earlier criminal cases by complainant's family against accused---No documentary proof of FIRs or conviction presented during trial---Cross-examination revealed motive may have existed on both sides due to matrimonial dispute involving family members---Held, prosecution failed to prove motive which thus could not corroborate prosecution case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 (f) Criminal trial ----Prosecution evidence---Safe custody and forensic analysis---Five empties allegedly recovered more than one day after occurrence from a public thoroughfare---Admitted by witnesses that no empties recovered on initial police visit---Prosecution failed to prove safe custody chain from collection to PFSA report---Forensic matching of pistol with empties held irrelevant in absence of proven custody---Benefit of doubt given. Cited Cases: • Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State 2018 SCMR 577 (g) Criminal trial---Abscondence of accused---Effect ----Abscondence alone cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt---Accused may abscond due to fear of police---In absence of credible direct evidence, abscondence held to be of no evidentiary value. Cited Cases: • Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad 1995 SCMR 1373 (h) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Principle ----Doubtful prosecution evidence---Where single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, accused entitled to acquittal as matter of right---Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to defective investigation, unreliable witnesses, contradiction between ocular and medical account, and weak motive---Conviction set aside and accused acquitted. Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 67614 of 2019 allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted. Murder Reference No. 33 of 2020 answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed.

Summary: Summary pending