' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.---Through the present civil revision the order dated 6-2-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, D.G.Khan has been challenged whereby while accepting the appeal he remanded the case back to the learned Trial Court for its decision on merits.
2. The relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that present respondents filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioners with regard to the land fully mentioned in the head- note of the plaint. The claim of the plaintiffs was that the land in dispute was owned by the Provincial Government and was a barren land and according to the policy of the government the predecessor of the plaintiffs were awarded rights of ownership since they had made the land cultivable after spending huge amount and there are their houses upon them and thus they have become owners of the land. It was further alleged that in the year 1972-73 the patwari of the village without any order from the competent authority transferred the rights to his brother Allah Ditta defendant No,5 which were ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs, though, the plaintiffs remained in possession and the rights of the plaintiffs were never cancelled nor the defendants ever tried to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs only for the reason that the forgery should not be discovered. It was further alleged that due to said wrong entries the defendant No,5 transferred the land to defendants Nos.6 to 9 through mutation No,829 dated 30-3-2005 and the said transfer was only in papers and was without delivery of possession and when defendants Nos.6 to 9 declared themselves to be the owner of the property, so, the plaintiffs inquired and fraud came into the notice of the plaintiffs.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit the defendants moved a petition under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. To the effect that they had purchased the property through Mutation No,829 from Allah Ditta and the plaintiffs were in possession of the land illegally and they had no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable.
4. The petition was resisted by the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that in the Revenue Record the plaintiffs were shown to be as illegal occupants and cultivators and the plaintiffs had shown no document with regard to the proprietary rights while the defendants had purchased the property from Allah Ditta and since they were illegal occupants and cultivator, so the suit for declaration against the real owners was not maintainable, resultantly vide order dated 19-12-2006, the learned trial court accepted the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit.
5. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved preferred the appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, D.G.Khan. The learned Additional District Judge 'after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had filed the suit on the basis of their possession as occupiers i,e, on the basis of occupancy. He' further observed that the disputed land was originally owned by Government of Punjab and it was for the plaintiffs to prove that on the basis of said occupancy they had become owners of the disputed land. He also observed that, though, in the Revenue Record the plaintiffs had been mentioned as illegal occupiers but in fact the plaintiffs had challenged the said entries in the Revenue Record nor it was their claim that they were in illegal possession of the disputed plot but their claim was that they were occupancy tenants and hence the suit was very much competent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1988, resultantly vide impugned order dated 6-2-2007 the case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court after accepting the appeal. This order of learned Additional District Judge, D.G.Khan has been challenged in the present Civil Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly it stands established from the Revenue Record that the plaintiffs were illegal occupants while the Revenue Record shows that the petitioners are real owner and so illegal occupants had no locus standi to file a declaratory suit against the real owners, so, the findings of learned Additional District Judge are erroneous that the suit was competent. He has placed reliance upon the case-law captioned Capt. Dr. Abdul Wahab v. Province of Punjab and another" (1986 M LD 2049 (Lahore)) wherein it was held while interpreting the provision of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. That the court has inherent jurisdiction to nip a incompetent suit at earliest moment. The reliance was also placed upon the case law captioned "Hawaldar Sarwar Khan through General Attorney v. Province of Sindh, Revenue Department through Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur and 5 others" (1998 CLC 382 (Karachi)) wherein it was held that the court was duty bound to bury incompetent plaint in its infancy.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge and contended that even the Revenue Record shows that there are long standing entries of possession of respondents upon the disputed land which was originally owned by the Provincial Government. He contended that for such a long period from time of predecessors of the plaintiffs the illegal occupants cannot retain the- possession. He contended that this fact itself shows that the possession of plaintiffs was peaceful as occupancy and they had become owner of the property under the law. He further contended that even if for argument sake it be presumed that the plaintiffs were not the owners even then the person having possessory rights is eligible to file a suit for declaration of his right to any property, though, he may not be the owner of property. In this behalf he placed reliance upon the case law captioned "Karam Din through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Idrees" (2010 CLC 246 (Lahore)), "Mst.Safia Mushtaq v. Wali Muhammad and 18 others" (2010 CLC 120' (Karachi)).
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Da provide that the plaint can be rejected if the suit is barred by law. The learned Trial Court on the basis of entries in the Revenue Record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were illegal occupants so, the suit against the real owner, was not competent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. It is also settled law that while applying the provisions of Order VII Rule .11, C.P.C. It is only the contents of the plaint which should be considered and in this behalf the defence put by the other side is immaterial. If after going through the contents of the plaint the courts come to the conclusion that if the contents are presumed to be correct even then the suit is barred by law, the court has the power to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. In the present case the stand of the plaintiffs was that they from the time of their predecessor were occupying the land as occupancy tenants which was, barren land and their predecessor made it cultivable after spending huge amount and through operation of law they had become "nen They had also challenged the entries in the Revenue Record. The Revenue Record at initial stage produced by the parties was taken into consideration by both the courts below which clearly establishes that land is in possession of the plaintiffs. Mere mentioning them to be the illegal occupants in the Revenue Record does not negate their claim that as to why for such a long time they remain illegal occupants. The only question for determination is that whether it is only a owner who is competent to file a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the answer is certainly no. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1988 did not postulate that declaration in respect of right to any property could be sought only by its owner, position of a person in possession would be stronger. Possessory right of a person would confer on him a legal status except against true owner, if any, which would be equivalent to legal character as envisaged under section 42 of the Act, 1877. In this way suit for declaration and permanent injunction by a person not being an owner of property but only having possessory rights is maintainable. Under provisions of section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 a person who was aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights and claimed right of which he was in possession could institute a suit for declaration of his right under Specific Relief Act, 1877. Since in the present case the plaintiffs had claimed right and possession of suit property and being aggrieved by the entries in the Revenue Record, provisions of section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 would be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by law in the circumstances.
10. In view, of what has been said above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional District Judge, D.G.Khan vide impugned order had committed no illegality by remanding the case back to the learned Trial Court for its decision on merits.
11. The net result of above discussion is that this civil revision has no force and same stands dismissed.