Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: OrderVII,Rule13,11

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Continuous cause of action---Filing of fresh suit---Plaintiffs filed earlier suit in year 1995 which was rejected in year 2005 due to non-payment of court-fee---Fresh suit filed by plaintiffs was rejected by Trial Court being barred by limitation, which order was maintained by Appellate Court---Plea raised by plaintiffs in revision was that as they were in possession of the suit land, therefore, suit was not barred by limitation---Validity---Both the courts below had completely ignored categorical statement in plaint that plaintiffs had never given possession and remained in possession of their land alleged to have been given in exchange to defendant---For the purpose of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. contents of plaint were assumed to be correct---If it was found at trial that plaintiffs continued in possession then date of exchange in question or even its knowledge would be of no relevance---Cause of action would thus be continuous and option was with plaintiffs to wait till such time that an actual threat to their possession became real---Orders passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to trial Court for deciding of suit on merits---Revision was allowed accordingly. Mst. Izzat v. Allam Ditta PLD 1991 SC 165 fol. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 27-10-2006 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. The contents of the plaint will be referred to in the later part of this judgment. The plaint was rejected vide order dated 8-11-2006 by the learned trial Court. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nankana Sahib on 4-4-2007 in limine. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the contents of the plaint have not been properly read by both the learned courts below. According to him the petitioners continued to remain in possession of the suit land and mere fact that they can be said to have the knowledge of the fraud committed would not make the limitation to run. No one has turned up for the respondents who have already been proceeded against ex parte vide…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492