' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---Facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioners had purchased 5 Kanals of land through sale-deed dated 6-12-2004 registered on 19-4-2005 comprising Khasra No.3433/2686, 3436/ 2887 and 3435/2688, Khewat No.212, Khatauni No.1049 to 1079 as per record of rights for the year 1997-98 situated in Mauza Mohlanwal, Tehsil and District, Lahore from one Shakeel Ahmad son of Hassan Muhammad for a consideration of Rs.1,000,000. After the sale-deed, the petitioners obtained the physical possession of 100/505 shares of land measuring 252 Kanals, 17 Marlas. The petitioner's predecessor-in- interest/vendor has also purchased the land out of the said land from Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Ashiq sons of Hassan Din and Muhammad Arif son of Abdullah vide sale-deed dated 1-3-1990. The said vendor has sold the said area out of the ancestral land along with the land purchased from one Mst. Thari widow of Imam Din vide registered Sale-deed No. 2925 dated 9-3-1963. The aforesaid sale-deed had been assailed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 and their brother Muhammad Hanif in a Civil Court through a suit for declaration challenging the vires of sale-deed.
The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 12-11-1990. The appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5-12-1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Shakil Ahmad, the vendor from whom, the petitioner has purchased the property in dispute applied to the Collector for correction in the Revenue Record, which was made through Tatima vide order dated 15-10-1997. The said order was assailed through an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, which was succeeded on 11-7-1998. Subsequently an appeal and review petition before the Board of Revenue was filed which had been dismissed vide orders dated 30-4- 2001 and 13-1-2003.
3. The respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed an application before the Sub-Registrar, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore complaining that the petitioners have manoeuvred to transfer the land through registered sale-deed in their favour fraudulently, while Shakil Ahmad had died one year earlier out of the country. The Sub Registrar issued notice to the petitioners who filed their reply to the same and the respondent No.1 Sub Registrar started proceedings on the application of the respondents. The proceedings of respondent No.1 have been assailed through the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the sale-deed had been registered in accordance with law and the Sub-Registrar endorsed the same keeping in view the rule 135 of West Pakistan Registration Rules, 1929. Further contends that the Sub Registrar lacks the jurisdiction to proceed further against the petitioners on the application of respondents. The sale-deed could only be challenged through the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. The petitioners have filed their reply before the respondent No.1/ Sub-Registrar to the application of the respondents but have not raised the objection of his lack of jurisdiction before the said respondent. Every Court or Authority before proceedings or taking any decision in the matter, as a rule of propriety, should first decide question of its jurisdiction. Said rule of propriety was fully applicable in all cases where challenge to jurisdiction was posed and in such a situation it was incumbent upon the Court to first advert to question of jurisdiction. When Court would come to a conclusion that it had jurisdiction, then it could proceed to pass appropriate order as laid down in case Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Tahir Edible Oil (Pvt.) Ltd. And others 2003 CLC 416 and Amanullah and others v. The State PLD 2003 Quetta 11. In case of Abbas Hussain and another v.
The State and another 1992 SCMR 320, it has been held by the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court that the objection pertaining to jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal has to be taken first of all before the same Court or Tribunal for its decision. In another case Abdul Ali v. Haji Bismillah 2002 SCMR 203, the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court have observed that objection about jurisdiction or competency of a forum should be raised at the initial stage in order to avoid complication and inconvenience, which may arise in the reversal of the entire process. In another of The State through Federal Investigation Agency S.I.U., Islamabad v. Ch. Shujaat Hussain and another 1995 PCr.LJ 701, Honourable Judges of this Court have held that objection about jurisdiction of Court has to be raised first of all before the forum where the matter is pending. Same view was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Arshad Aziz, Managing Director, Imran Corporation (Pvt.) Limited and another v. Bank of Oman Ltd. And another PLD 1995 Lahore 6.
7. The decision taken by a forum having no jurisdiction would be a futile exercise and that is why the superior Courts held that appropriate forum before proceeding or taking cognizance of the matter should first decide its own jurisdiction. Even otherwise, no final order prejudicing the right of the petitioners has been passed by the Sub-Registrar/ respondent No. 1, and on this score alone, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners shall, in the first instance, raise objection of jurisdiction before respondent No.1 and if any order in this regard contrary to their interest is passed resort to the other remedy.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.