' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---As per the order dated 17-1-2004 of the Board of Revenue, inter alia, the petitioner was allowed to pay the price of the land in question under the Lambardari Grant Scheme dated 13-7-1976, and the claim of respondents Nos.2 to 4, to succeed in inheritance regarding the same grant, was disallowed by the Board. The order was challenged by the said respondents through a suit for the declaration, before the civil Court wherein, the petitioner filed his written statement and thereafter, moved an application under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. For the return of the plaint on the ground, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. This application has been accepted by the learned Civil Judge on 23-2-2005, who passed the following order:-- "In view of the above discussed circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form by this Court due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence the plaint under Order VII, rule 10 of C.P.C. Will be returned on request of plaintiff and rest of the file be consigned to the record room after its necessary completion."
' The above order was challenged by the respondents in appeal, and the learned Appellate Court has accepted the same and rejected the application of the petitioner. However, in the order the Appellate Court, it has been held:-- "The civil Courts, are ordinarily have jurisdiction to decide the matter whether any act having been done purportedly in exercise of power conferred under any law of land to the Revenue Authorities, could be validly done there under section 36. So there is no cavil to declare that civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine legality of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities in this case. Section 36 of the Act did not divest jurisdiction of civil Court to decide, what legal effect an order of Revenue Authority, validly passed under the Act would have on the rights of the parties, section 36 of the Act did not oust jurisdiction of civil Court to examine correctness and legality of order passed by the said authorities."
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondents Nos.2 to 4 has conceded that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, to the extent of finally determining the question about jurisdiction, is unlawful. However, he states that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court should have framed a proper issue enabling the parties to lead evidence, if any required on that issue and to decide the same.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that both the orders of the trial Court as also the Appellate Court, are absolutely illegal, unlawful and passed in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
' There was no justification for return of the plaint, when the objection was not that any other forum, other than the Civil Court, has the jurisdiction. In such a situation, the trial Court should have decided the question; if it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit, on that account the suit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But the plaint could not be returned. Be that as it may, both the impugned orders are not lawful, therefore, these are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court, where the suit of the respondents shall be deemed pending. The Court shall frame appropriate issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, and decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14-11-2005. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.