Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 11, 6, 115, 96

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 113

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 199

Precise Summary The appellant, Abdul Razzaq, instituted a suit for specific performance in 2019 based on an alleged oral agreement purportedly entered into in 1983. After a lapse of 36 years, the respondents filed an application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). While the trial court initially dismissed the application, the Revisional Court (Additional District Judge) accepted the revision, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaint on the grounds that it was hopelessly time-barred and failed to disclose material particulars regarding the oral agreement. The Peshawar High Court, presiding over a Regular First Appeal (RFA), identified a significant procedural hurdle: an RFA under Section 96 CPC is only maintainable against decrees passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Since the rejection of the plaint occurred in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, the Court held that neither an RFA, a second revision, nor a second appeal was maintainable. Following the precedent in Misree Khan v. Abdul Ghafoor (PLD 2025 SC 24), the Court converted the RFA into a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. On the merits, the Court affirmed the rejection of the plaint, noting that suits based on oral agreements must plead exact dates, times, and witnesses with precision. Furthermore, the 36-year delay violated Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and the failure to plead grounds for exemption under Order VII Rule 6 CPC rendered the suit ex-facie barred by time. Tagline A suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement must plead specific material particulars; stale claims spanning decades without legal justification are "dead claims" liable for rejection at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.  ORDER; AURANGZEB, J.- Through the instant appeal, the appellant/petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad, whereby the learned revisional Court, while accepting the revision petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 13, rejected the plaint of…