Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Sardar MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: ITTEFAQ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY through Chief Executive/Managing DirectorHonorable Justice SH. AZMAT SAEEDMalik Abdul Wahid,Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry and Malik Abdul Sattar Awan
2007 M L D 1906
2007 M L D 1906
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Atta Bandial, JJ
Sardar MUHAMMAD IQBAL---Appellant
Versus
ITTEFAQ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY through Chief Executive/Managing Director and others---Respondent
Regular First Appeal No.191 of 2006, decided on 4th April, 2007.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss.39 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 290---Suit for declaration and cancellation of documents---Rejection of plaint---Suit for declaration, cancellation of resolution of defendant Insurance Company as well as the power of attorney and sale-deed executed in pursuance thereof---Plaint in the suit was rejected under O.VII, R.11, Cr.P.C. on the ground that suit was barred by S.290 of Companies Ordinance, 1984---Defendants had conceded that the basis for rejection of plaint as disclosed in the impugned order, were not tenable in law, but plaint was liable to be rejected on other grounds and impugned order and decree were not sustainable---Validity---Held, it would be appropriate that defendants in the suit, were to take all objections to the maintainability of the suit together which could always be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after hearing the parties and. thereby ensuring that none of the .parties was taken by surprise---Appeal was accepted, impugned order and the decree were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.
Malik Abdul Wahid for Appellant.
Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry and Malik Abdul Sattar Awan for the Respondents.
ORDER
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Learned counsel for the parties state that a short point is involved and the main appeal be heard today rather than the C.M. application. Consequently, with the consent of the parties the main appeal is being heard.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a resolution of the respondent No.1 as well as the power of attorney and sale-deed executed in pursuance thereof. The plaint in the said suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. vide the impugned order, dated 29-5-2006 on the ground that the suit was barred by section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have frankly conceded that the basis for rejection of the plaint as disclosed in the impugned order may not be tenable in law. However, the plaint nevertheless was liable to be rejected on other grounds. In this view of the matter, the impugned order and the decree that followed, dated 29-3-2006 are not sustainable and in the circumstances it would be appropriate that the respondents, B who were defendants in the suit, may take all the objections to the maintainability of the suit which can always be adjudicated upon by the trial Court after hearing the parties and thereby ensuring that none of the parties is taken by surprise. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order and the decree are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for the decision afresh. The respondents may file an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. setting out the grounds for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court shall decide the said application, if filed, within four months of the filing of the said application.
Appeal is accepted and case remanded in the above terms.
H.B:T./M-234/L Case remanded.