SC rules plaint cannot be rejected before trial if it discloses cause of action

ISLAMABAD, Jul 28 (APP):The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) merely because the court believes the plaintiff may ultimately fail to prove the allegations.

The court held that where a plaint contains the essential facts constituting a legally recognizable cause of action, it cannot be dismissed without recording evidence and conducting a proper trial.

A three-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui announced the verdict on a petition filed by citizen Nisar Ahmad Afzal. The majority judgment was authored by Justice Shahid Waheed, while Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui wrote a dissenting note.

The apex court set aside the judgments of the Islamabad High Court and the trial court, restored the plaintiff’s suit and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after recording evidence.

The judgment observed that the court’s jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 is strictly limited to examining whether the facts pleaded in the plaint, if assumed to be true, disclose a legal right and a cause of action. At this stage, the court is not permitted to assess the evidence, determine the truthfulness of the allegations, or evaluate the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success.

The court further clarified that there is a fundamental distinction between the disclosure of a cause of action and its proof. If the plaint contains the material facts necessary to establish a cause of action, it cannot be rejected merely because the court considers it difficult for the plaintiff to prove those facts. Such an approach, the judgment said, would amount to deciding the merits of the case before a full trial, which is contrary to law.

According to the judgment, the plaintiff alleged that he had sold a property located in Sector F-11/2, Islamabad, for PKR 65 million on the basis of trust. However, the agreed sale consideration was never paid, while the property was transferred in the purchaser’s name in breach of the agreement. The court held that these allegations, on their face, disclosed claims of fraud and deceit, the veracity of which could only be determined after recording evidence during trial.

The majority judgment noted that the subordinate courts had erroneously equated the possible difficulty in proving the plaintiff’s claim with the absence of a cause of action, although the two are distinct legal concepts.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui held that the property had been transferred voluntarily and that there had been an agreement to pay the sale consideration later. Therefore, in the event of non-payment, the appropriate legal remedy was recovery of the sale price rather than cancellation of the property transfer. He concluded that the trial court and the Islamabad High Court had rightly rejected the plaint.