' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner filed a suit for the declaration, against the respondents, claiming that the property in dispute is not an evacuee trust property, rather is a Shamlatdeh the respondent/Board through its Secretary moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For the rejection of the plaint, which application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13-7-2004; the respondent/Board preferred a revision, which has been accepted and the plaint has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is a distinction between the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit and the bar of law about the institution of the suit. According to him, the plaint could only be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. If it is barred by law and when the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Court has been raised, it is the duty of the Court to frame an issue and to necessarily record the evidence, and thereafter to decide the matter. But in the present case, this procedure has not been followed.
3. Heard. In fact, Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is not an exhaustive regarding the rejection of the plaints.
Obviously according to the subsection (d) of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the plaint could be rejected, when the suit is barred under any law e.g. Bar of res judicata or limitation, etc. However, besides the above, the Court has the power to dismiss the suit in the nature of rejecting the plaint, where there is a clear law ousting the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In this case, according to section 8 read with 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), if a question arises, whether any property is evacuee trust property or not, it is the Chairman of the Board, who shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue and his decision should be the final. As per section 14 of Act XIII of 1975, the civil Courts cannot take the cognizance of such matter, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner instead of approaching the civil Court, should have approached the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board, by raising the question about the status of the property.
Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in this behalf and the learned revisional Court has rightly rejected the plaint of the petitioner, which order is akin to the dismissal of the suit. Moreover, I am not impressed with the argument that the Court could only decide the matter after framing of the requisite issues and enabling the parties to lead evidence.
Suffice it to say that such procure or course can be dispensed with, where the ouster of jurisdiction, as in the present case, is eminent on the basis of clear provisions of law.
' In the light of above, this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.