' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 8-7-2003 passed in Civil Revision No,540-D of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Yaseen, the plaintiff/petitioner, herein had instituted a suit for declaration challenging orders of the Member Board of Revenue, dated 29-2-1988 and 22-3-1998 that of the Consolidation Officer dated 27-6-1984 and that of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), dated 26-7-1986 respectively in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan, against the defendants/respondents. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 21- 5-2001, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment, dated 2-4- 2003 dismissed the suit. Both the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have been assailed by the petitioner through a civil revision before the High Court which met the same fate, vide impugned order, out of which this petition for leave to appeal has arisen.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record with his kind assistance.
4. The petitioner has challenged different orders 'passed by the Consolidation Officers including, Board of Revenue. The adjustment of lands and share distribution in consolidation operations fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authority and Civil Court could not sit in appeal on them. By the very nature of the task, the judgments of the consolidation officers were to be respected subject to remedies for their correction in the mode and manner provided in the consolidation law of Holdings.
5. Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. 1960, barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The relevant portion is reproduced for further benefit and ready reference as under:-- "26. Jurisdiction of the 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 other officer is by this Ordinance, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of."
6. Even if not expressly ousted, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred impliedly. This Court in case of Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCM R 292 has held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under section 26 of the Ordinance, even if allegations are made in a suit that decision has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
Civil Court being the Court of plenary jurisdiction, can enquire into the question whether decision of Special Tribunal is based on fraud and in case it is so, it has the jurisdiction to declare the same to be void. In another case Muhammad Jamil Asghar. v. The Improvement Trust Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698, this Court has laid down that the order of administrative authority based on the existence of certain circumstances, Court can make an enquiry and declare this order of such authority to be void if such circumstances are not found to exist and Civil Court's jurisdiction with respect to mala fide can never be taken away. But in the matter, where the question of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction is missing, the Civil Court lacks its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of mala fide, fraud or want of jurisdiction and thus, the provision of section 26 of the Ordinance is attracted to the present case. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact by all the three Courts below (Trial Court, Appellate Court, High Court). The factual controversies are involved in this case. The Court is always reluctant to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below even if it can take a different view. Reference in this behalf can be made to the case of Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi v. Rist Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore 1998 SCM R 2393, wherein it is observed that question of fact already decided by the lower forum is not open for examination at appeal stage before the Supreme Court. Further reference can usefully be made to the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Fajji alias Phaji Begum through Legal Heirs and another 1998 SCM R 2485, Muhammad Azam v. Inayat Shah 1998 SCM R 1356 and Mazhar Iqbal v. D.C.O. Toba Tek Singh and others 2005 PSC 124.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is unexceptionable.
9. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.