Muhammad Masood Tahir & 1 Other Vs Amanah Pvt Ltd. through CE Abid Ali etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No. 54032/2026

Muhammad Masood Tahir etc. Versus Amanah (Private) Limited etc. S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. 18.09.2026 Mr. Abdul Waheed Chaddha, Advocate for the petitioners.

Through this Civil Revision, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of order dated 20.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Lahore whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved by them seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2.Inessential details apart, in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners, it was contended that agreement to sell dated 28.12.2013 was not signed by Amanah (Private) Limited through its Chief Executive, Abid Ali Butt (“respondent”) rather the same was signed by defendant No.6, whose alleged signatures were present on the agreement to sell and defendant No.6 had already denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell. It was further asserted in the application that, due to this fact, the suit for possession with specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.12.2023 with mandatory and permanent injunction instituted by respondent was not maintainable.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of judgment of the august Supreme Court of

Civil Revision No. 54032/2026

Pakistan reported as Akhtar Waheed v. Muhammad Hussain and others (2025 SCMR 551), the suit was not maintainable as there were no signatures of respondent/ plaintiff on the agreement to sell and petitioner No.3/defendant No.6 had already denied his signatures thereon and in these circumstances, the suit was not proceedable. Further submits that, instead of taking these facts into consideration, learned trial court dismissed the application while holding that the plaint was disclosing the cause of action and that the points raised by the petitioners were to be decided after recording of evidence.

4.Heard. Record perused.

5.From perusal of the record, it transpires that partial oral as well as documentary evidence has been recorded and there is every likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The suit was instituted on 03.06.2017 whereas the instant application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed on 04.02.2026 which is indubitably a factor for procrastination of trial. In the circumstances, learned trial court rightly held that the objection qua maintainability of the suit raised by the petitioners would be decided after recording of evidence.

6.It is significant to mention here that in terms of Notification No.237/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 15.08.2018 and subsequent Notification No.250/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 23.10.2020, in Order VII CPC, Rule 11-A was inserted which is reproduced below:-

“11-A. Separate application barred.- A plea for rejection of plaint under rule 11 may be raised by the defendant in his written statement and not by a separate application.”

Civil Revision No. 54032/2026

7.It shall be apposite to note that Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in its original form, provided for rejection of plaint in four eventualities, viz., where the plaint did not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed was undervalued and the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court; where the plaint was insufficiently stamped and the requisite stamp- paper was not supplied within the time fixed by the Court; and where the suit appeared from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The provision, thus, contemplated rejection of a plaint at the threshold where the defect was apparent from the plaint itself. However, separate application(s) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC during the course of trial often resulted in interlocutory proceedings, causing delay in the disposal of the suit(s). To regulate such practice, Rule 11-A was subsequently inserted in Order VII CPC whereby a plea for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to be raised in the written statement and a separate application for that purpose is barred.

8.The above provision is to be read in conjunction with the scheme of Order VIII CPC. The legislature has prescribed a period of 30 days for filing the written statement so that the defence of the defendant is brought on record at the earliest, enabling the Court to frame issues and proceed with the evidence without unnecessary delay. Where the written statement is not filed within the prescribed time or fixed by the Court, the Court is empowered to strike off the right for submission of written statement. The object is to ensure that the lis proceeds from pleadings to framing of issues, recording of evidence and final adjudication without avoidable interruption. Separate application under Order VII Rule

Civil Revision No. 54032/2026

11 CPC may defeat this scheme by delaying conclusion of the proceedings. Rule 11-A was introduced to prevent such procedural delay and to ensure that a plea under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is raised in the written statement rather than making a separate application.

9.In the wake of above, it becomes crystal clear that the object of the legislature in introducing Rule 11-A in Order VII CPC is to discourage the defendant to the lis from moving separate application seeking rejection of plaint to prolong the proceedings. Nevertheless, the defendant can press for framing an issue in this regard and learned trial court, if it deems fit, can decide the issue regarding maintainability of the suit first before proceeding further.

10.So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same is distinguishable on the facts of this case and relates to appreciation of evidence, therefore, is of no help to him.

11.Without prejudice to above, another aspect involved in the instant case is that partial evidence has been recorded, therefore, deciding the case on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would definitely amount to making the evidence redundant, which will shake the scheme provided in the CPC for trial and conclusion of the case.

12.As a corollary to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to pinpoint any illegality, legal infirmity, jurisdictional defect, mis-reading and non-reading of record in the impugned order to which no exception can be taken in revisional jurisdiction. With

Civil Revision No. 54032/2026

this observation, this Civil Revision being devoid of merits stands dismissed in limine.

13.Before parting with this order, Office is directed to transmit a copy thereof to all the learned District Judges in Punjab for onward transmission to all the Courts under their respective administrative control, with a direction to take into consideration the provisions of Order VII Rule 11-A CPC, particularly while dealing with applications purportedly filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, so that the legislative intent underlying Order VII Rule 11-A CPC is given due effect and separate applications for rejection of plaint are not entertained in a manner that unnecessarily delays or procrastinates the trial.

Signed (MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN)

28.09.2026 JUDGE

Abis Ali

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE