' SYED TAHIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Hassan Shah and four others residents of Oshikhandas Gilgit, seek leave to appeal against the findings returned by the Chief Court Northern Areas, vide judgment, dated 18-12-2006, recorded in- Revision Petition No,9 of 2003, whereby the learned Chief Court upheld the findings of First Appellate Court dated 28-4-2005.
2. Brief facts succinctly stated are that the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration of right in property entered in Khasra No,338/338-J measuring 15 Kanals, 5 Marlas with consequential relief.
The suit was hardly contested by the defendants/respondents and even issues were framed but before the stage of evidence on 4-7-2001 the learned Civil Judge on his own accord returned the plaint, under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation to the proper Court.
3. Felt aggrieved with the order referred above present petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Gilgit who on his turn dismissed the appeal finding himself in agreement with the orders of the trial Court. The learned District Judge has unnecessarily fallen into the merits- of the case when the matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court which does not demand a detail discussion on all the issues agitated by the parties under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C.
4. Aggrieved again the plaintiff/petitioners filed a revision petition before the Northern Areas Chief Court challenging the wires of order made on 12-5-2003. The view taken by the Chief Court was not a different one as the learned Court chose to agree with the findings returned by the two subordinate Courts. It would not be out of the place to mention here that Chief Court has also chosen to decide matters extraneous to the point under discussion. A review petition was followed but the result was not a different one that passed in the revision petition.
5. As a last attempt petitioners have challenged the order of the Northern Areas, Chief Court under Article 9 of the Northern Areas, Court of Appeals (Establishment) Order, 1990.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that all the three subordinate Courts failed to appreciate the legal point involved in the instant appeal. He further reiterated that while returning a plaint the Court is to look into the contents of the plaint and nothing else. He further argued' that the authorities referred to by the learned Civil Judge do not conform with the facts of the case in hand.
7. The learned counsel for the private respondents and the learned Advocate-General controverting the points raised contended that the property involved in the present suit is out and out Khalisa land hence the dispute exclusively pertains to the Revenue Court which is only competent to adjudicate the matter. The learned counsel on the score of contention supported the orders passed by the Courts below.
8. The bare reading of order passed under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. By the trial Court exposes that it has been made in a slipshod manner, without furnishing any reason to sustain it in the eye of law..
It, however, reflects that orders passed by the then Judicial Commissioner, Northern Areas in cases C.S.A. No,9 of 1998 to C.S.A. No,11 of 1998 have found basis of the impugned order.
9. We have gone through the contents of above referred orders with the above assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and found that no similarity exists between the facts of the case in hand and of those referred above. Each case has got its own facts and the decision follows on the basis of the facts incorporated in the matter. No authority can bind the Courts on factual aspect of the case. Moreover authorities do not have any universal application except on legal proposition.
The learned trial Judge has failed to attend the other facts of the plaint except the one challenging the order of Revenue Officer dated 18-3-1985. Thel plaintiffs have claimed the suit property on the basis of an ex parte decree in their favour (which till today not challenged). Furthermore they have also impugned an agreement deed on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation etc. The merits of these issues can only be adjudicated and looked into by a competent Civil Court which are altogether foreign to a Revenue Court. May be that the plaintiffs, later on failed to establish the averments taken in the plaint but these points could not be brushed aside at the very outset of the proceedings without affording a fair opportunity of proof and rebuttal. It is also incumbent on the Court to go through the entire plaint rather to take it in piecemeal to benefit the B Court of its jurisdiction. Documents and even written statements are not to be taken into consideration at this stage of the proceeding,
10. The proper and legal course for the trial Judge was to formulate a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, even though not raised in the defence and to decide it after giving a fair and full opportunity of hearing to the parties rather to take the issue suo motu in a slipshod manner. This seems to be a clear departure from the judicial norms to dispose of a matter. The superior Courts have always emphasized for a decision on merits rather to dig out lacunas in the disputes and to knock out the claim on this score. The order passed by the trial Court does not fall within the ambit of a judicial order lacking in reasoning and also fanciful.
11. As far the orders passed by the two subordinate Appellate Courts these are fallacious and in transgression of the limit of the jurisdiction the law conferred on them. The learned Appellate Courts below have unnecessarily discussed matters extraneous to the fact in issue which are quite uncalled and premature at this stage which do not deserve to be maintain in field. The orders are perverse and without jurisdiction.
12. In the result whatever discussed above in detail, the order passed on 4-7-2001, 12-5-2003 and 28-4-2005 of the Courts below are set at naught being fallacious, capricious and without jurisdiction.
13. Petition for leave to appeal is allowed and converted into appeal and accepted. The case is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction to proceed with the case under law and to dispose the same within the shortest possible time: These are the reasons for our short order, dated 4-7-2007. No order as to costs.