' MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN KHAN, J.--- These two appeals by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 10-10-2003, vide which the revision Petition of respondent No,1 has been accepted, .The judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been set aside and the case has been remanded to Civil Judge-IV, Quetta for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after recording the evidence and hearing the respective parties.
2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No,1, Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad now dead and represented by his L.Rs,, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners and pro forma respondents Nos.10 to 12, in respect of properties situated at Masjid Road, Quetta which were allotted to him by Deputy Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner, Quetta Kalat and P.T.O. Was issued in his favour on 15-9-1960. Subsequently, the said property was declared Evacuee Trust Property and taken over by the Evacuee Trust Property Board. According to respondent No,1, after issuance of P.T.O. He made construction over the property in dispute by incurring heavy expenditure and thereafter let out the said property to the present petitioners along with others. It is further alleged in the plaint that in the year 1991, respondent No,1/plaintiff asked his tenants for enhancement of rent due to increase in local taxes, but instead of enhancement in rent, the petitioners joined hands with the Settlement Authority (Assistant Administrators Evacuee Trust Property, Quetta), who made a reference under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII), 1975 for declaring the property in dispute as Evacuee Trust Property, whereupon the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board declared the same as such vide order, dated 12-12-1991. Respondent No, l/plainiff dissatisfied with the order, preferred a revision petition before the Federal Government, which was accepted and the matter was remanded to Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board for fresh decision after hearing the parties. On remand the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board again declared the property as Evacuee Trust Property, but directed for selling out the same to respondent No,1/plaintiff with prior approval of Federal Government at the rate to be determined by Deputy Commissioner, Quetta. Respondent No,1 filed various applications before the Government functionaries and also approached the Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court through an application which was converted into suo motu Constitutional Petition No,60 of 1999, which was later on dismissed as not pressed. He filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, but the same was also dismissed being barred by time. Thereafter, respondent No,1/plaintiff filed the instant suit in the Court of Civil Judge-IV, Quetta.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents and they took a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Courts for entertaining the suit on the ground that under the Act (XIII of 1975), the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts have been specifically excluded. The trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the plaint for want of jurisdiction on 28-8-2001. Respondent No, 1/plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Judge, Quetta which was later on transferred to Additional District Judge-III, Quetta who dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of Civil Judge-IV, Quetta.
Dissatisfied with these orders, Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad preferred civil revision before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta and a learned single Judge of the said Court after hearing the petitioner and counsel for the respondents in detail, passed the impugned judgment, dated 10-10- 2003. Hence these appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that Civil Court has got no jurisdiction, that the respondent has got no P.T.O. In his favour and that by remand order the agony of the parties will be prolonged and that if the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred as held by the Courts below, then a Pandora box of suits will start. He stressed that the remand order is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel cited in his support Evacuee Trust Property Board through Assistant Director, Evacuee Trust Properties, Gujrat v. Muhammad Siddique alias Bandoo and others 1995 SCM R 1748 and Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Zakia Begum and others. 1992 SCM R 1313 and stressed that under section 14 the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the L.Rs, of Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad mainly argued that petitioners are tenants and that when they stopped the payment in the year 1994, the tussle arose. He argued that respondents are the legal allottees and they have constructed a huge building and incurred huge expenses and the said shops were let out to the petitioners, further argued that as malice and mala fide is apparent on the record, therefore, the trial Court has got ample jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, further argued that the trial Court should have framed issues including the issue of jurisdiction and after recording of the evidence, he should have passed a comprehensive judgment followed by a decree further argued that the denial of the petitioners is malicious and the petitioners are no more tenants and have been ousted from the property and the respondents i,e, L.Rs, of Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad are in possession of the same, further argued that official respondents acted in connivance with the present petitioners and deprived the respondents from the fruit of the income of their propert. He supported the judgment of the High Court and termed it as correct and in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the official respondents mainly argued that this is a second round of litigation, that the matter has once reached up to this apex Court and argued that the remand order will further prolong the agonies of the petitioners. The crux of the arguments of the official respondents was that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted/barred under section 14.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have also perused the relevant record.
8. Admittedly, under section 14 of Act XIII, 1975 the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted/barred, out that jurisdiction is barred in ordinary cases and when mala fide and malice is attributed to the official respondents, then the Civil Courts are the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction and they can decide the matter in accordance with law. In the instant case, the malice/mala fide against the official respondents is clearly reflected as P.T.O. Was granted to the respondent in the year 1960 and right from year 1960 -uptill 1994, there was no wrong with the respondent but when he enhanced the rent of the present petitioners being his tenants, then the present petitioners with the connivance of the official respondents took up the matter again and cancelled the P.T.O. And dragged the respondent to prolong litigation. The respondents have been allotted the suit property as back as from 1960 and they incurred huge expenses on the construction of the property and then it let out to the present petitioners. The department slept over the matter for 34 long years and then suddenly came out of slumber in the year 1994, when the petitioners agitated the matter with the respondents regarding the status of the property. So, in such-like circumstances, if there is clear cut mala fide and malice apparent on the face of record, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted. The Honourable Judge has correctly relied upon Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCM R 356 and The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331. The authorities referred by the petitioners' counsel i,e, Evacuee Trust Property Board through Assistant Director, Evacuee Trust Properties, Gujrat v. Muhammad Siddique alias Bandoo and others 1995 SCM R 1748 and Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Zakia Begum and others 1992 SCM R 1313 along with Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs/Minority Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Mufti Iftikhar-ud-Din and another 2000 SCM R 1 are very correct in their perspective but in those cases no malice or mala fide has been alleged against the official respondents. A bare perusal of the plaint itself reflects a clear cut mala fide on behalf of the Government functionaries by the respondent-plaintiff in clear words. So keeping in view all these factors, the judgment of the Honourable High Court is plainly correct and the trial Court has been correctly directed to afford an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence in order to prove the mala fide and to see whether the order passed by the official respondents was illegal, void or without jurisdiction. Lastly we would like to say that any observation, direction or opinion given by this judgment shall in no way affect the impugned order of the trial court who after recording the evidence and hearing the respective parties, passed an order in accordance with law based upon the available evidence.
Consequently, the two appeals in hand are dismissed with no order as to costs.