12. The maintainability of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C for rejection of plaint under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) C.P.C has been considered in the case law titled as Messrs SINDH ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD versus OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY and others (2004 YLR 59) before the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, wherein the Hon’ble High Court on the basis of withdrawal of earlier suit reached the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable as being barred by Order XXIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The same principle was also considered in the judgment titled as SHAH WALAYAT and 3 others versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another (2003 MLD 961) and ROZI KHAN GOJAR and another versus Mst. REHMAT BIBI (2004 CLC 466). In all the afore-referred judgments suits were barred by law under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the C.P.C and the plaints were rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It is in the interest of justice that still-born suit should be laid to rest at the earliest. Reliance is placed on GHULAM ABBAS and others versus MOHAMMAD SHAFI through LRs and others (2016 SCMR 1403) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a similar situation held that where earlier suit had unconditionally been withdrawn the subsequent suit on the basis of the same cause of action is barred by law and upheld the decision of the High Court to nip the appellant’s still-born claim in the bud. Relying upon the afore-mentioned judgments, I have also reached the same conclusion that suit filed by the petitioner could not be allowed to proceed further and application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C is liable to be allowed.
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTCivil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)
683-16
| 2017 LHC 1004 |
0 Comments