' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of C.Rs. Nos.1105, 1106 and 1107 of 2003 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these revision petitions.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of these revision petitions are that respondents in all these revision petitions filed three suits for permanent injunction against the petitioners to the effect that they were owners of suit property and defendants/ petitioners had no concern with the same and that they had no right to interfere into their possession. The plaintiffs stated that suit property was part of `Abadi Deh' of Village Panja Tehsil and District Khushab and originally Qasim Ali etc. Were owners from whom they had purchased the same vide agreements dated 15-3-1997, 1-7-1975 and 2-1-1989 and also obtained possession. The plaintiffs further stated that they had constructed houses after spending huge amount, hence defendants could not interfere into their possession.
The petitioners filed written statement. They also filed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint and stated that respondents had filed suit only on the basis of agreements to sell, therefore, their suits were not maintainable. They also mentioned that respondents had encroached upon the suit-land (Khewat No.1269, Kila No.8) and that they had filed application under rule 67-B of Land Revenue Rules before Collector (D.D.O(R)) Jauharabad and respondents/ plaintiffs had filed suit only as counterblast and that according to section 172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, jurisdiction of civil Court was barred. The respondents/plaintiffs filed reply. After hearing the parties learned trial Court accepted the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
Brought by petitioners/ defendants and rejected the plaint vide order dated 25-6-2002. The respondent filed appeal thereagainst, which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Khushab vide judgment dated 17-5-2003 and case was remanded to learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits after receiving amended plaint. Hence, these revision petitions.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, the case of petitioners is that they are owners of suit-land and respondents have encroached upon the same. Also that they have already initiated proceedings under rules 67-A and 67-B of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 for carrying out of demarcation proceedings and eviction and Collector has passes order against respondents, therefore, according to section 172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, jurisdiction of civil Court is barred.
However, case of respondents is that they had purchased disputed property from Qasim Ali etc. Vide agreements dated 15-3-1997, 1-7-1975 and 2-1-1989 and later on during consolidation proceedings this property was given to petitioners and since the controversy between the parties is the offshoot of competing claims of title, therefore, prayed for relief could be sought only from the civil Court and hence jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities stood ousted.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. It is pertinent to note that case of respondents is that they had purchased suit land from Qasim Ali etc. However they have failed to bring on record any copy of record of rights (Jamabandi) or sale- deed to show that their transferor was actually owner of the suit land. So it is clear that respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, they are not entitled to any discretionary relief and their suits are liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. According to Revenue Record petitioners are owners of suit property. They moved application for demarcation of suit-land and according to report of Revenue Officer respondents have encroached upon the same. On the basis of demarcation proceedings the petitioners filed ejectment application against the B respondents, which was accepted vide order dated 24-5- 2002. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents have already filed appeal against the said order. As such the respondents can raise their objections/pleas before said forum.
So according to section 172 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. In the circumstances of the case I find that learned Additional District Judge failed to consider this aspect of the case. The order passed by learned trial Court was just and proper and there was no justification to set aside the same. As such judgment dated 17-5-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that these revision petitions are accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and plaints are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.