' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---This civil revision petition under section 115 C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-1-2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, whereby appeal of the respondent-defendant No,1 against the judgment and decree dated 8-7-2011 of the learned Civil Judge-VII, D.I. Khan, was accepted and suit of the plaintiffs was remanded to the learned court with directions to the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit and file fresh one by removing all legal and formal defects.
2. Short facts leading to the instant revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of 4 kanals landed property bearing khasra No,847 out of total 161 kanals 19 marlas along with recovery of damages on the ground that the respondent is their tenant and has illegally raised constructions over the disputed property. The respondents/defendants appeared before the learned trial court and filed their written statement. The learned trial court after framing issues, recorded evidence of the parties and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 8-7-2011. Appeal preferred by the respondent No,1 against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, was accepted on 26-1-2012, hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appellate court has wrongly observed about the jurisdiction of the civil court as the instant suit has been filed for possession through devolution of constructed house and not for the recovery of possession regarding agricultural land.
He contended that for the recovery of possession agricultural land petition is pending before the revenue hierarchy and the jurisdiction with regard to the constructed property, exclusively lies with the civil court. He contended that the remand order has not been passed in accordance with law, rather the appellate court has not considered the matter in true perspective and has wrongly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
4. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the jurisdiction for ejectment of tenant at will exclusively falls within the domain of revenue court and the civil court has been barred to adjudicate the matter and for this very reason the appellate court has properly remanded the case to the trail court with direction to the petitioners to withdraw their suit from the trial court. He contended that the instant petition is not competent as the impugned judgment and decree, is the remand order against which revision petition is not competent. He contended that the petitioners have already approached to the revenue forum for eviction of the respondents and the disputed property is the part and parcel of that property and the civil court has got no jurisdiction with regard to the disputed property, even if it is in constructed form.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that admittedly the respondents are tenant at will over the suit property under the petitioners and the revenue record is evident to this effect. It is also admitted that the petitioners are owners of the property, have filed ejectment petition before the revenue forum for the ejectment of respondents/tenants from property in possession of respondents and suit property, which is constructed house built upon property of 4 kanals out of khasra No,847. The petitioners have filed the instant suit for possession of the constructed house only along with recovery of Rs,20,000 regarding the loss accrued to the petitioners and Rs,15,000 per year till the possession and delivery of the house in dispute. The petitioners have categorically averred in the plaint for recovery of 4 kanals of constructed property whereas the rest of the property, which is agricultural in nature is subject matter of ejectment petition before the revenue hierarchy. The respondents tried to intermingle both properties and contended that the constructed property is the part and parcel of the agricultural land which is misconceived. It is established principle of law that proceedings for ejectment can only be filed before civil court in respect of constructed A property whereas ejectment of the tenant from agricultural property can be sought from revenue hierarchy. There is no confusion in choosing the forum with regard to the constructed property and agricultural property. The petitioners-plaintiffs have rightly filed the suit for possession-through ejectment of tenant from the suit house which has no nexus with the agricultural property which is subject matter before the revenue forum. The respondents have admitted the construction of the property measuring 4 kanals and have claimed sum of Rs,20,000 as expenses on the construction of the house. In such state of affairs the property in dispute is in constructed nature in the shape of house and jurisdiction to adjudicate to issue with this regard exclusively lies with civil court.
7. The learned appellate court has reversed the findings of the learned trial court without assigning any reason. Moreover, the learned appellate court has remanded the case to the learned trial court, with the direction to the petitioners for withdrawal of their suit and for filing fresh suit on removing the legal and formal defects. Meaning thereby that the learned appellate court on one hand observed that the civil court has no jurisdiction and at the same time directed the petitioners to file afresh suit after removing the legal and formal defects, which does not stand reason, as the observations are not in accordance with law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition is accepted, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court and remanded the case to the learned appellate court/District Judge, D.I.Khan with the directions to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties of being heard strictly in accordance with law, within shortest possible time preferably within a month The parties are directed to appeared before the court of learned District Judge, D.I. Khan on 14-9-2013.