' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit claiming declaration of title on the basis of correction of the entries made in the Revenue Record which occurred on account of deletion of certain entries therein, started right from the year 1911 and also in different Jamabandis regarding different entries and which entries according to them were finalized during the consolidation proceedings completed in the year 1984-85. As a contest of the suit by the appellants/defendants, a number of issues were framed including the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and also limitation as the suit has been filed in the year 1994 with a challenge to the entries in the Jamabandi, which are as old as more than four decades. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties has given issuewise findings, some of which had been decided in favour of the respondents while the others, including the limitation and the lack of jurisdiction, were decided in favour of the appellants. These findings were also confirmed by the appellate Court, however, on revision the findings of the two Courts below were reversed by the High Court and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree of the High Court which has been challenged through the instant appeal by leave of the Court.
2. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellants has contended, inter alia, that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction in the matter and a finding to this effect given by the two Courts below i,e, the trial Court and Appellate Court are in consonance with the provisions of law i,e, section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Ordinance"). To this, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that it was the officials, the Revenue Officer, competent to deal with the consolidation proceedings, who on application filed by the respondents directed them to settle the matter through the Civil Court and they have rightly approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court has wrongly refused to entertain their suit and which error was corrected by the High Court.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgments of the Courts below and the available record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The High Court while setting aside the judgments of the Courts below and holding that the findings of the Civil Court qua the lack of jurisdiction is erroneous has observed ".... Since long standing entries were in the Revenue Record they were directed by the Revenue Authorities to move to the Civil Court, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No,8 are entirely erroneous for non-suiting the petitioners who rightly moved to the Civil Court after direction passed by the Revenue Authorities. The omission to exercise jurisdiction vests in the trial Court is an error patent A on the record". It seems that the issue has wrongly been referred as Issue No,8 as the question of jurisdiction has been formulated under Issue No,5. The learned High Court after considering the Revenue Record placed on file, with the assistance of the Patwari as summoned, was of the view that none of the learned Courts below have considered the Jamabandi and all of the relevant documents and the evidence produced by the parties and the judgments suffer from non- consideration of material evidence and erroneous assumption of facts, cropping up due to misreading of evidence.
4. The foremost question involved in the case is jurisdiction of the Civil Court as there is an express bar contained in section 26 of the Ordinance which reads as under:-- "26. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, barred as regards matter arising under this Ordinance.--- No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which Government or the Board of Revenue or any officer is by this Ordinance, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of."
' This statutory provision about the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court has been interpreted in the case of Nawab v. Ghulab and 4 others 2004 SCM R 1833 and has held as under:-- "5. We having considered the matter in detail, find that no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court wherein it has been held that due to the bar of jurisdiction contained in section 26 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the civil suit was not maintainable. The judgment of the High Court being not suffering from any illegality, would not call for interference of this Court.
This petition having no substance is accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused."
' This statutory provision is also having the backing of other judgments enunciated by the superior Courts in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCM R 292, Ahmad and others v. Karam Hussain and another 1986 SCM R 1384, Sardara and 4 others v. Province of the Punjab through Collector, District Jhang and 17 others 2000 CLC 1752 and Farman Ali and 7 others v. Khani Aman and 400 others PLD 2005 Pesh.
186.
5. The ground which weighed with the learned High Court about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is the observation made by the B consolidation authorities over the application submitted by the respondents, the existence of which application has also been controverter by the learned counsel for the appellants. What the case may be let it be as to whether the application was submitted or not but the finding of the consolidation/Revenue Authorities returning the application on the ground that the parties should approach the Civil Court in a matter in which there is a statutory bar over the entertainment of the lis by the Civil Court, does not change statutory provisions of law and the High Court has gone on a wrong premises by holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction.
Though the entries of the Revenue Record have been challenged, which are quite old and even if entertain able the question of limitation would also be a factor to be adjudged.
6. What has been discussed above, the conclusion is, that in view of bar contained in section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1960), no such order could have been passed directing the respondents to approach Civil Court.
The matter is accordingly remanded to Collector Consolidation to examine the entire controversy in the light of revenue laws as well as bar contained in section 26 of the Ordinance, 1960 after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned so that the controversy could be set at naught completely. The judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, dated 27-11-2001, judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 16-4-2001 shall remain intact and judgment impugned is set aside.