Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: VII Rule 11

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129

REMARKS

(Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan)
1. Plaintiff challenged the general power of attorney executed in favour of the defendant by claiming it to be fraudulent document and also sought cancellation of the registered deed executed in 2016 on the basis of said power of attorney. Defendant filed application for rejection of plaintiff under Order VII rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that matter requires recording of evidence; and this order of the trial court was maintained by the revisional court. Still aggrieved, defendant filed constitutional petition before High Court. --- Held --- After the execution of impugned registered deed, the plaintiff instituted a guardianship petition seeking guardianship of her minor in the year 2018. Said petition was filed through the same general attorney and she in the witness box as AW-5 in the said petition endorsed his status as her attorney. Plaintiff also revoked the power of attorney in the year 2019 and in the body of revocation deed she herself admitted that she had appointed the defendant as her general attorney. Thus, there is no need to record evidence as plaint does not disclose any contestable cause of action.
2. While deciding the fate of plaint within the purview of Order VII Rule 11 CPC only contents of the plaint are required to be looked into but the other material on its own intrinsic value can also be considered along with the averments made in the plaint. 2002 SCMR 338 relied.
3. In case the plaintiff conceals any material fact in the plaint, which if brought before the court the plaintiff would have been out of the court for having no cause of action, and such a fact if disclosed by defendant, the same can also be pondered upon judiciously and plaintiff should not be allowed to grind the other party into a false and frivolous litigation.
4. In case where suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibit can be spelt out of the 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, provisions of Rule 11 of the Order VII are not exhaustive. The Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction can nip the frivolous litigation in the bud when on account of some legal impediments full fledged trial will be a futile exercise. 2014 SCMR 513 relied.

(The constitutional petition filed by defendant was allowed and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)