Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VI, R.1.1---Term "cause of action" as used in O.VII, R.11(a), C.P.C.--_ Meaning and scope---Term "cause of action" would include every fact which it would be necessary to prove, if traversed, in order to enable plaintiff to sustain his action---Every such fact which was necessary to prove would form part of cause of action. [p. 14] A Rehmat Bibi v. Ramzani PLD 1967 Lah. 1074 and Abdul Rehman v. Wahid Bakhsh and others PLD 1977 Lah. 1243 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VII, R.11 & 5.100---Rejection of plaint---Essentials---Plaint could be rejected if same did not disclose cause of action for which plaintiff was not only to allege bundle of facts but was also required to show that not only some right had been infringed but right to seek relief was in existence---Provisions of O. VI I, R.11, C. P. C. being not exhaustive if Court felt at any stage that suit was incompetent, Court on application of defendant could decide such matter under O. VII, R.11, C. P. C. ---Policy of law is that incompetent suit should be laid at rest at earliest moment so that no further time was wasted over what was bound to collapse at the end as not being permitted by law---Where positive prohibition could be spelt out of legal provisions, Court would have inherent jurisdiction to reject plaint---Rejection of plaint having been correctly made it did not warrant any interference particularly in second appeal. [pp. 15, 16] B & C Burmah Eastern Ltd. v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190; Syed Zahid Hussain and another v. C.D.A.. Islamabad 1979 CLC 502 and T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Setyapal and another AIR 1977 SC 2421 ref. Nazir Ahmad Qadri for Appellant. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Respondents ORDER This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Muzaffarabad, passed on November 28, 1996, whereby an appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad dated March 31, 1996 was dismissed. 2, The facts forming the background of this appeal are that a suit was filed by the 'plaintiff-appellant, in the Court of Sub-Judge,…