1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---By order dated 18-10-2001 the learned District Judge, Gujranwala has ordered the rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereagainst this appeal has been preferred.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel that instead of rejecting the plaint by himself, the learned District Judge should have entrusted the matter to the civil Court as the matter ought to have been heard and decided by a Court of lowest grade. Reference in this context has been made by him to Ghulam Nabi v. Syed Mugarab Hussain and 3 others PLD 1972 Karachi 408. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that since the plaint per se did not disclose cause of action, the learned District Judge could order the rejection of plaint as has 'been done in the instant case.
3. ' The record has been received which has been perused. A declaratory suit with consequential relief had been filed by the petitioner assailing a mutation of inheritance. It was initially being dealt with by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujranwala which was then transferred to Mr. Asad Hafeez, Civil Judge Class-HI, who on 29-9-2001 referred the matter to the learned District Judge, Gujranwala for appropriate orders. This was statedly for the reason that one of the defendants to the suit was the District Collector, Gujranwala. On 18-10-2001 the learned District Judge thought it proper to retain the file with him in original jurisdiction and after considering the contents of the plaint and application filed by the respondents/defendants for rejection of the plaint, ordered the rejection thereof. It has been found on the strength of judgment dated 25-9-2001 in C.R. No.2359 of 2000 that the judgment of Federal Shariat Court was not retrospective in operation and therefore, the plaintiff/ appellant had no cause of action in the matter. Such a proposition has not been disputed.
4. The grievance however, of the appellant is that proper opportunity to meet the objection was not afforded to him. The perusal of the order-sheet and the impugned order however, shows that the application for rejection of the plaint had been filed by the respondents of which the appellant/plaintiff had notice and was heard by the learned District Judge. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel that the reference of the matter to the civil Court by the learned District Judge would have been merely an exercise in futility which would have resulted only in prolongation of the matter. The learned District Judge had the "jurisdiction. In original civil suits" and could exercise such jurisdiction in appropriate cases by virtue of section 12 (2) of .The Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the Court in rejecting the plaint.
5. ' The appeal, therefore, is without merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.