JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- The petitioners/plaintiffs impugn the order of the Trial Court dated 15.9.2004, whereby their plaint was rejected, and the order of the learped Appellate Court dated 1.6.2005, whereby the rejection of-the plaint was affirmed.
2. The learned Courts below have proceeded on the premise that the property in dispute was evacuee property and the contention between the parties stood settled by the revenue forums in their capacity as settlement authorities' right upto the Board of Revenue. On this basis, the learned Courts below. Have held that they lacked jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners,- however, points out that the property was not evacuee property but had been allotted in favour of the petitioners as refugees from Jammu & Kashmir.
According to learned counsel, the dispute between the parties related to title. And, therefore, had to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts. -
4. I have gone through the orders of the Collector, Sialkot dated 11.3.1996 and of the Commissioner, Gujranwala .DivisiOn dated 5.8..1996. From these orders, it is evident that the property is .Dispute was not Subject tc adjudication under the settlement laws because it was not property allotted or dealt with by the settlement authorities
5. The above contentions of learned counsel 'for the petitioners are, well-founded. The learned Law Officer appearing for the province and learned. Counsel representing the private respondents were not in a position to controvert the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In addition, I need to .And.That issues had already been framed by the learned Trial Court including an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court. These issues including the question of jurisdiction require evidence.
It will be open to the private respondents to assert that the property in dispute was evacuee, property and that it was allotted and dealt with by the Settlement authorities On the other hand, the petitioners could prove their 'contention that the settlement authorities had no jurisdiction over the -suit property.But. This too would be a mixed question. Of law and fact requiring evidence.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, the impugned orders rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioners are set C.L.R. aside. The suit of the petitioners shall stand restored before the learned Trial Court which shall proceed to decide the same through a regular trial. Since the suit was filed as far back as 1994, the.
Learned Trial Court shall proceed to decide the same expeditiously. -.