JUDGMENT CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---Through the instant civil revision the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 4-6-1995 passed by learned trial Court and judgment/decree dated 11- 11-1996 passed by learned appellate court whereby the suit for permanent injunction was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, of C.P.C.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land measuring 12-Kanals situated in Khasra No.550/1 of Mouza Muhammad Nawaz Para Tehsil Bahawalnagar according to Khatoni of consolidation. He is in possession of this land as co-sharer. He is also in possession of land measuring 26-Kanals situated in Khasra No.550/4, the detail of which is fully described in the plaint. It has also been alleged that the land measuring 26- Kanals situated in Khasra No.550/4 is owned by the Central Government and defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4 have no concern with the said property as the plaintiff has been cultivating the same and has also constructed his residential house. The defendants are bent upon to interfere in the possession of plaintiff without any reasons..
The plaintiff has also prayed for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interference in the possession of plaintiff over the suit property.
3. The suit was contested vehemently by the defendants by filing written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. They also raised some preliminary objections and stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. The suit property is owned by the Central Government. The plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit land. Learned trial Court vide order dated 4-6-1995 rejected the plaint under Order. VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court which also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-1996. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned courts below have erred in law while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The impugned order as well as judgment and decree are against law and facts on record. In fact the petitioner is owner in possession of two properties in the same Mouza and the defendants while submitting written statement admitted the possession of suit property, so learned trial Court illegally rejected the plaint while disposing of the application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned courts below extended undue benefit to the defendants while passing the impugned order and judgment/decree. Thus, the same are liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the impugned order as well as judgment and decree are well reasoned and based on cogent ground. Further contended that infact suit cannot be proceeded as the Province of Punjab has been impleaded without any reason. There is mis- joinder and non-joinder of parties and the suit of the plaintiff is not competent in its present form.
Hence, instant civil revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.
7. From the careful perusal of record it reveals that though the defendants in Para No.2 of the written statement have admitted the possession of the petitioner to the extent of 10-Marlas in Killa No.25, rectangle No.550/4, but the petitioner could not show his exclusive possession over the suit property. However, I am of the view that the petitioner has a case which the learned trial Court had to decide it on merit after settling necessary issues, but both the courts below rejected the plaint of the petitioner on flimsy ground mentioned by the respondents/defendants. As such, instant civil revision is accepted and the impugned order passed by learned trial Court as well as judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court is set aside with a direction to learned trial Court to decide the case on merit after framing the necessary issues on the question of facts.