Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 578 2004 SLD 578 2004 CLD 616
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1700 of 1999, decision dated: 30-05-2003, hearing DATE : 20-05-2003
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE
Farogh Naseem and Sardar Ejaz for Plaintiffs. Sajid Zahid for Defendants.

MASOOD ASIF AND OTHERS

VS

UNITED BANK LTD AND ANOTHER

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VII, R.11(a)---Rejection of plaint for non-disclosing cause of action---Essential considerations highlighted. It is well-settled that for deciding application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., the contents of plaint are to be looked into besides any other material available on record before Court, which is not disputed by plaintiff. However, plaint cannot be rejected by taking into consideration plea of defendant, which is disputed and denied by plaintiff. No doubt, the plaint has to be rejected, in case the same does not disclose any cause of action. However, for this purpose, the averments made in the plaint are to be considered and plaint should not be rejected for the reason that formidable objections are raised in defence. Where the matter requires factual investigation, then plaintiff must be given an opportunity to substantiate his case. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances), Act (XV of 1997)---Ss.9 & 10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit by borrower against Bank for specific performance of agreement and recovery of damages etc. ---Rejection of plaint---Bank through agreement initially granted time to plaintiff to liquidate agreed debt, but later on appointed Receivers of mortgaged properties, which resulted in loss of business to plaintiff--­Plaintiff in pleadings of such plaint alleged that Bank by making plaintiff to believe that Bank would abide by its representations and agreement prevented plaintiff from. raising finances through alternative sources and means--­Plaintiff in plaint also alleged that cause of action arose in its favour and against Bank, when such agreement was arrived at between parties---Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were also made in plaint---Bank in application for leave to defend disputed most of the averments made in plaint---Factual inquiry in such matter was inevitable---Factual controversies could only be resolved by recording evidence after framing of appropriate issues and not otherwise---Plaintiff had a cause of action--­Application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., was rejected in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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