' The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the respondents field a suit for declaration along with consequential relief on 15-5-1994 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat.
' The contents of the plaint reveal that the respondents have instituted a suit for declaration along with consequential relief that a house consists of 8 rooms, veranda, courtyard, kitchen etc., measuring one Kanal, 18 Marlas situated in Abadi Deh Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat in Khasra No.836 was an ancestral property. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the house in question originally was owned by Syed Manzoor Hussain, father of the respondents/plaintiffs who had constructed a house on the land in question. The original owner has only two daughters namely Sakina Bibi and Sughran Bibi. The house in question was inherited by the respondents/plaintiffs after the death of the original owner. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES"
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs are exclusively owners in possession of the suit house? OPP
4. Relief."
' The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree.Dated 12-1-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12-4-2003. Hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter by virtue of section 11 of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. He further submits that the judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that two notifications issued by the petitioner qua taking over the property in question were not property construed in its true perspective, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. There is no doubt that jurisdiction of the trial Court is barred under section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 when the property in question has been declared and taken over by the Auqaf Department under the provisions of said Ordinance. The property in question has not been taken over by the petitioner under the provision of the aforesaid Ordinance, therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zafar-ul-Ahsan v. The Republic of Pakistan, through Cabinet Secretary, Government of Pakistan (PLD 1960 SC 113). It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court on Issue No.3 to resolve the controversy between the parties: ISSUE No.3:
10. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that bone of contention between the parties is a house situated in Khasra No.836 in village Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat. The version of the appellants is that the suit house is assumed by the Auqaf Department according to the Notification Exh.D.1 dated 6-7-1982. On the other hand contention of the respondents/ plaintiff is that suit house was originally owned by one Manzoor Hussain Shah and Manzoor Hussain Shah has no male issue except two daughters. Manzoor Hussain Shah belonged to FiqaJafria. Manzoor Hussain Shah died seven years prior to the filing of the suit and now suit house was inherited by the plaintiffs. To prove their case Shaukat Abbas special attorney was produced as P.W.1, Muhammad Bashir as P.W.2 and they also produced documentary evidence in the shape of Exh.Pl to Exh.P.6. Their main contention is that suit house is situated in village Abadi of Meowal in Khasra No.836 and to prove this fact they produced certified copies of Register of Record of Rights for the year 1974-75 Exh.P.5, 1990-91 Exh.P.6.
From the perusal of Exh.P.5 and Exh.P.6 it establishes that Khasra number of Village Abadi of Meowal is 836 and same is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. In rebuttal the appellants/defendants produced copy of Notification Exh.D.1. From perusal of Para. No.1 of Exh.D.1. It reveals that Shrine of Hazrat Tawakal Shah alias Jatti Shah Rehman along with Masjid, a House consists four rooms with courtyard, Water Pump, covering an area of 2 Kanals, 9 Marlas out of Khasra No.836 min, Khewat No.271, Khatooni No.811 in the Revenue Estate of Meowal Tehsil and District Gujrat according to the Revenue Record for the years 1974-75 was assumed by the Auqaf Department, Khasra No.836 is not included in the Schedule. Except this, there is another document Exh.D.2. Except this there is no other document or oral evidence produced by the appellants/defendants. But these two documents also did not advance the case of the appellants/defendants because appellants/defendants have failed to establish that suit house is situated in Khasra No.836 min and also failed to prove that same was assumed by Auqaf Department through Notification Exh.D.1.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that respondents/plaintiffs have proved their case in the learned trial Court and learned trial Court has rightly decreed their suit. Because there is no evidence on record to establish that suit property is Waqf Property and has been assumed by the Auqaf Department vide Notification Exh.D.1 dated 6-7-1982. In these circumstances, findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No.3 are maintained."
Mere reading of the above-said operative part of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court reveals that the First Appellate Court has passed the impugned judgment after applying application of mind. It is proper and appropriate to reproduce Notification dated 6-7-1982 and notification dated 13-2-1983.
"Notification dated 6-7-1982: ' I, Aftab Ahmad Khan, Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore, in exercise of powers conferred on me under section 7 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 hereby take over and assume the administration, control, management and maintenance of the Shrine of Hazrat Taw.Akal Shah alias Jatti Shah Rehman, situated in the Revenue Estate of Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat, as described in the schedule annexed here to; ' SCHEDULE
1. Shrine of Hazrat Tawakal Shah alias Jatti Shah Rehman, along with Masjid, a House consists four rooms with courtyard, Water Pump, covering an area of 2 Kanals, 9 Marlas, out of Khasra No.836 min, Khawat No.271, Khatooni No.811 in the Revenue Estate of Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat, according to the Revenue Record for the year 1974-75."
"Notification dated 13-2-1983 ' 1, Aftab Ahmad Khan, Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore, in exercise of powers conferred on me by section 7 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 hereby made the following amendment in the Notification .No.S0P-1(499)A/68 dated the 6th July, 1982 regarding takeover of the Shrine of Hazrat Jawakal Shah alias Jatti Shah Rehman, situated in the Revenue Estate Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat.
' AMENDMENT ' Item No.1, of the Schedule of Notification as follows:-- '
1. Shrine of Hazrat Tawakal Shah alias Jatti Shah Rehman along with Masjid, coutryard, veranda, room with veranda, room with veranda, a room without house for the cattle, house for cattle, Store Room, one house consisting four rooms with courtyard and two hand pumps, covering an area of 6 Kanals, Marlas within fourwall, detailed as Estate Agricultural Land. West Houses of Ali Akbar etc. South Gali and North Open plot Gali and House of Sardar Khan in the Revenue Estate of Abadi Deh, Meowal, Tehsil and District Gujrat."
In case the aforesaid Notifications put in juxta-position then it is crystal clear that the property of the respondents is not mentioned in clear term in the said Notifications. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below while exercising power under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The parameters have been prescribed by the Privy Council in N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The relevant observation is as follows: "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact of law."
The judgment of the Privy Council was followed by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mahmood (NLR 1985 Civil 114), which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.1146 of 1984 vide judgment dated 31-3-1985 which was re-affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Ghulam Qadir (PLD 1988 SC 625). The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Courts below. Therefore, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Revision .