' On 19-2-1995
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said orders which were passed in judicial proceedings by Court of competent jurisdiction including this Court could have been considered and the learned District Judge without considering the same and also the fact that there was no denial, proceeded to remand the case. He relies on the cases of Muhammad Akhtar and others v.
Abdul Hadi and others 1981 SCM R 878 and Muhammad Shafi and another Muhammad Bakhsh and another PLD 1971 Lah.
148. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 simply states that only plaint could have been considered.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now, as stated by me above, the plaintiff while admitting all the said facts in reply to the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Has not at all mentioned the same in this plaint. He has simply prayed for a declaration that the said order dated 28-2-1989 of the District Collector be declared to be void. Now a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No,5106 of 1993 is available on record. Admittedly, this writ petition was filed by the respondent No,1 himself challenging the said order dated 28-2-1989 which was confirmed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. After hearing both the parties, the writ petition was dismissed. I would deem it proper to reproduce here the following operative part of the judgment in para.5 thereof:-- "(5) The order passed by the Collector on 28-2-1989, is within the parameters of section 19 of the Colonization Act, 1912. It has been upheld by the Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue.
The reasoning adopted is that the judgment of the Civil Court dated 20-9-1975, has to be followed by the Revenue Authorities. As a pure question of law this is correct. It is also correct that the judgment/decree, dated 20-9-1975, upholds the existence of the agreement in favour of respondent No,5 otherwise the petitioner could not have been restrained in the manner prayed for.
In the circumstances, I do not find any improperly, muchless illegality in the order of the Collector giving permission to transfer the suit-land."
4. Certified copies of the decree dated 20-9-1975, order dated 25-3-1985 dismissing the application of the respondent No,1 under section 12(2), C.P.C. And judgment dated 7-4-1986 of learned District Judge Khanewal, dismissing the appeal of the respondent No,1 are also available.
5. Now all the said orders and proceedings are admitted. However, the respondent No,1 has opted to suppress the same in the plaint. The said judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Akhtar and others, fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said authentic documents could have been looked into. The matter was further elaborated by their Lordships in the case of S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (moin) through Legal Heirs 2002 SCM R 338 that documents other than the plaint, the validity and authenticity whereof is not questioned can be looked into.
Now the legal position is that this Court has already held the order impugned in the suit to be legal and valid after considering all the pleas noted in the plaint. The said order of this Court had admittedly been not challenged in the manner prescribed by law. This being so, the suit is bound to fail. The Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is fully applicable. The suit is barred by law. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-1-1996 of the learned District Judge, Khanewal, is set aside and the one passed by the learned trial Court on 24-5-1995 rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is restored with costs throughout.