Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96, 107, 11, 1 & 2 , 33, 1(r)

Law: THE STAMP ACT, 1899

Section: 33, 38 & 40

Tagline

An appellate court deciding a miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC cannot transgress its limited interlocutory jurisdiction to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or decide the main suit on its merits.
 

 Summary

1. Context & Background

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.04.2011, along with an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The trial court granted the temporary injunction on 11.10.2025. Respondent No. 3 (a subsequent purchaser) challenged this interim order through a miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC before the District Judge, Faisalabad.

During the pendency of the miscellaneous appeal, Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 151 CPC read with Sections 33, 38, and 40 of the Stamp Act, 1899, seeking a forensic examination of the stamp vendor's register. The District Judge accepted this application on 18.12.2025 and referred the register to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA). The PFSA report dated 20.01.2026 opined that the relevant entry had mechanical erasures, overwriting, and different ink usage. Relying on this report, the District Judge on 21.02.2026 set aside the trial court’s temporary injunction and went on to reject the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner challenged both the forensic direction and the final rejection of the plaint in the instant constitutional petition.