ORDER MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- The petitioner's application dated 6,2.2007 seeking revocation of the' proceedings of superdari dated 31.1.2007 and resumption of the land by respondents No. 1 and 2, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge through order dated 8.2.2007. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Revision which was also dismissed' by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar through order dated 28.3.2007 upholding the Civil Judge's order terming the application to be premature. Hence the present Constitutional petition.
2. Limine notice was issued to respondents No. 1 ana 2. In response thereto, the learned A.A.G. Has appeared alongwith Muhammad. Aslam, Tehsildar Bhakkar Respondents No. 5 to 16 were the co- plaintiffs with the petitioner. As such, they are only the proforma respondents.
3 Both the sides addressed their full arguments from which it emerged that the petitioner sought decision of his application dated 6.2.2007 for cancellation of' proceedings dated 31.1.2007 for superdari and resumption of land on merits. Instead the learned subordinate Courts' held the application to be premature.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.G. Appearing for respondents Nos. I and 2. I find that the decision of the present Constitutional petition is dependent upon the meaning of the word premature' and also on the question as to whether the learned subordinate Courts exercised their jurisdiction in accordance with the.-law by-dismissing the petitioner's application dated 6'.2.2Q07 as premature instead of deciding rhe same on merits.
5. In the present case, the proceedings dated 31.1.2007 had been carried out in execution of some orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Superdari of the petitioner s crops was handed over to the superdari and the suit land was resumed. At the minimum, under the orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner's possession over the suit land was interfered with and the petitioner was deprived of the yield of the crops sown by him. The learned A.A.G and Muhammad Aslam, Tehsildar Bhakkar does'not dispute these facts. The petitioner questioned the above actions of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as illegal and in violation of the stay orders. Vires of these actions became the litigated facts and questions in the petitioner's application dated 6.2.2007. The grievance or the cause to agitate thereagainst had thus unarguably matured. When cumulatively read, the above referred facts/actions gave rise to as many causes as the facts. It is.Thus quizzical as to how the learned district Courts could term the petitioner's application as "premature". They appear to have adopted a course to bypass the decision on merits of a mature cause.
6. The learned A.A.G. Wishes .This Court to consider that the learned Courts pended the petitioner's application seeking proceedings for disobedience of the interim orders to decide the same on merits because the subject matter of the two applications was the same. Be that as it may, the'facts of the two applications may be the same or similar or identical but such facts gave rise to the separate actionable causes as well as the relief's under the law. The two applications were thus considerably, distinct and independent in- their scope and legal consequences. In view thereof, the. Learned district Courts- unjustly declined to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the law by "holding the petitioner s application dated 6.2.2007 as premature. The impugned orders are thus held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
10 This Constitutional petition is accepted. The impugned orders having been declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the petitioner's application dated 6.2.2007 shall be re- decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with the law. This application shall be decided expeditiously in view of the risk of destruction and loss to the. Crops. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court bn 23.5.2007. The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this order before the learned trial Judge. . a