' The dispute involved in the present case relates to an evacuee property situate in the town of Dera Ghazi Khan. The first respondent, Muhammad Shafi, made an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of Riaz Ahmad and others from the said property. It was alleged by the first respondent that the disputed property was abandoned by one Kewal Ram and had been transferred to one Inam-ud-Din under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and that he being the son of Inam-ud-Din had inherited the same on the death of Inam-ud-Din. The application met with success with the result that an order of ejectment was passed against Riaz Ahmad and others.
2. During the execution of the ejectment order, the petitioner, Muhammad Ahmad, made an objection petition stating that he was in possession of the disputed property in his own right and could not be thrown out of that property in execution of the said order. His plea was that he disputed property was, in fact, owned by one Atma Ram and had been transferred to one Imam- ud-Din but in the Permanent Transfer Deed issued in favour of Imam-ud-Din certain alterations were made so as to show that the property had been abandoned by Kewal Ram and not Atma Ram and had been transferred to Inam-ud-Din and not Imam-ud-Din. According to the petitioner, the said Imam-ud-Din had agreed to sell the property to him (petitioner) by entering into an agreement of sale and had also put him in possession of the said property.
3. Besides making the objection petition, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents, namely, the aforesaid Muhammad Shafi, Province of the Punjab, Settlement Department, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, D. G. Khan. In that suit, he challenged the validity of the aforesaid alterations in the Permanent Transfer Deed and prayed for a declaration to the effect that they were of no legal effect. He also asked for a mandatory injunction, by way of a consequential relief, requiring the respondents to restore the original entries in the said Deed.
4. The plaint in the suit was rejected by the learned Senior Civil Judge, D. G. Khan, who was seized of the suit, for the following reasons :- "The plaintiff has admittedly moved an objection petition. If the plaintiff has got any right or interest in the property in dispute, he would be entitled to lead evidence and get established that the settlement authorities made alterations in the record with a mala fide intention. They accordingly inserted the name of Imam Din vice Imam Din and illegally described that the property was originally owned by Kewal Ram instead of Otma Ram. A simple suit for the declaration with respect to the said alteration in the record without claiming a main relief for the establishment of proprietary rights and title with respect to the property in dispute is not competent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit is not competent in the present form particularly during the pendency of objection petition. The question of right and interest of the plaintiff can be considered during the said proceedings as stated under Order XXI, rule 103, C. P. C. Read with section 12 (2), C. P.
C. (since amended in the year 1980 A. D.)."
' The order of the learned Senior Civil Judge has been upheld by an Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner complained that while rejecting the plaint, the learned trial Court had taken into consideration the written statement which could not be looked at for making the impugned order. He maintained that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure only the contents of the plaint could be considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
6. I have gone through the copy of the plaint filed by the petitioner and find that in paragraph 4 thereof he had himself stated that he had filed an objection petition before the Court which was seized of the proceedings relating to execution of the ejectment order. As stated above, the plea taken by the petitioner in the objection petition is that he is in possession of the disputed property in pursuance of the agreement of sale relied upon by him. It was not disputed by the learned counsel that the ejectment order was to be executed by the civil Court as a decree. It appears that the objection petition had been made under rule 100 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to rule 103 of Order XXI of the said Code, all questions arising as to the title, right or interest in, or possession of immovable property between the applicant under rule 100 and he opposite-party are, to be adjudicated upon and determined by the executing Court, and no separate suit can be filed for the determination of any such question. It would, therefore, follow that in view of his aforesaid statement in the plaint regarding the pendency of his objection petition the suit brought by the petitioner was barred by rule 103 of Order XXI of the Ode of Civil Procedure and, accordingly, the plaint could be rejected under clause (d) of rule 11 of Order VII of the said Code without taking into mount the written statement. In other words, even if the written statement is excluded from consideration, the order rejecting the plaint would not been to any legitimate exception.
7. It was also urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner's suit as not in respect of the title to the disputed property and, therefore, it has not hit by rule 103. It is true that the prayer made by the petitions in the suit was in regard to the entries in the Permanent Transfer Deed but the fact of the matter is that by filing the suit he wanted to safeguard his possession of and other rights and interest in, the disputed property on the basis of the agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into by Imam-ud-Din who, according to the petitioner, was the real transferee of the said property. The object behind the institution of the suit by the petitioner was the same for which he had made the objection petition. He cannot be permitted to circumvent law by claiming relief in such a manner as to get out of the teeth of rule 103. His suit did come within the mischief of that rule and therefore, the plaint of his suit was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.
8. There is no merit in the petition. It is dismissed in limine.