AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chunian whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the judgment/order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chunian whereby the plaint filed by the petitioner was rejected on the application moved under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- plaintiff purchased the suit property from defendants No. 1 and 2 through registered sale-deed dated 11.9.2003 and on the basis of registered sale-deed Mutation No. 13072 was also attested on 17.11.2003 in the names of the plaintiff-petitioner.
When defendant No. 3 claimed .To be owner of a part of the suit property, the petitioner-plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 3 has been incorporated as owner of a part of the suit property through Mutation No. 9496, therefore, the petitioner was forced to file the suit for declaration and defendant No. 3 filed written statement as well as application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 7.6.2007 accepted the application and rejected the plaint and appeal filed by the petitioner was also met with the same fate, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit from whom he has purchased the suit property; he further contends that the plaintiff-petitioner purchased the suit property from defendants No. 1 and 2 and they were C.L.R. recorded as owners of the suit property, therefore, states that application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC moved by defendant No. 3 was not competent and both the Courts below fell in error while rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. He lastly argues that even the plaintiff is well within his rights to move for amendment in the plaint for claiming further relief against the defendants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments of both the Courts below. He further argues that under the provision of Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that it is not a case of rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, when there was factual controversy involved between the parties as it has not been denied that defendants No. 1 and 2 were owners of the suit property, when the petitioner purchased the suit property. The petitioner can move for amendment in the, plaint for claiming further relief against defendants No. 1 and 2. .