' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he being bona fide purchaser of the suit property fully mentioned in the head-note of !He, plaint was entitled to claim its proprietary rights and nobody including the respondents was justified to interfere with his possession. The said suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by submitting their separate written statements. The respondents/defendants No 1 to 3 an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of,CPC ,for rejettion of the plaint before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 10.2.2005. The respondents/defendants No, 1 to 3 preferred a revision petition- against the said order and the learned lower revisional Court/Additional District Judge Bahawalnagar accepted the said revision petition vide order dated 21.9.2005. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the orders passed by the two Courts below are at variance, that the provisions of Order VII, Fiule 11 of CPC did not apply in the instant case and that it is a settled principle of law that Court has only to examine the contents of the plaint at the time of deciding the application under Order VII; Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, that the petitioner/plaintiff being the bona fide purchaser of the land was entitled for the decree of declaration, that the impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional Court is illegal, ineffective, void ab initio and is liable to be set aside.
3. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has supported the impugned order. He further argued that the disputed land stood cancelled from the name of the original allottee and then the Border Area Committee was competent to allot the said land in favour of any deserving personnel and in this regard the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been specifically barred by the statute, promulgated far the allotment of Border Area land. He further mooted that the Civil Court could not adjudicate the matter when the jurisdiction of the said Court is specifically barred.
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The perusal of the plaint reveals that the disputed property had been allotted to Subedar Kanwar Javed Ahmad respondent/defendant No, 4 and patta malkiat was also attested in his favour on 12.5.1980, which was followed by mutation No, 24 dated 02.7.1981 duly sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in favour of the said respondent. Thereafter the respondent/defendant No, 4 transferred the said disputed property to Mushtaq Ahmad respondent/defendant No, 5 through registered sale- deed No, 194, dated 24.4.1985 and then the suit property was alienated in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner vide mutation No, 52, dated 18.3.1992. Now on the strength of said transfer/mutation No, 52 the petitioner/plaintiff is in occupation of disputed property as exclusive owner. The respondent/defendant No, 2 Chairman Border Area Committee without notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/plaintiff has cancelled the original allotment of defendant No, 4 vide order dated 26.9.1998. The petitioner has challenged the said order and its implementation in the revenue record on the ground that the same is against law, without jurisdiction, ex parte, mala fide and collusive, which is liable to be set aside. No doubt respondents/defendants No, I to 3 contested the suit and thereafter filed an application for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide his order dated 10.2.2005, but the learned lower revisional Court has allowed the revision petition through the impugned order dated 21.9.2005 with the following observation:- "Thus Civil Court is not competent to try the suit. Learned Trial Court has not scrutinized the material available on file properly while disposing of applications moved under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. Thus has committed illegality and material irregularity. Both the plaints were liable to be rejected under Order., VII, Rule 11, CPC. Orders under discussion are not sustainable, hence set aside. The suits are not pending in this Court, therefore, the matter is left at the option of learned Trial Court to dispose of the suits in the light of discussion mentioned above. Revisions thus succeed which are allowed."
6. As per provisions of Order VII, rule 11, CPC, plaint in a suit can be rejected in the following cases:-- - i. Where it does not disclose a cause of action. Ii. Where the relief claimed is under-valued. Iii.
Where the Court-fee of full valuation has not been paid, and iv. Where the suit on the face of averments of memo. Of plaint and relief claimed is barred by any law.
7. It is a settled principle of law that plaint can be rejected in a suit and Court in addition to memo.
Of plaint can also look into admitted/disputed documents such as regards of previous litigation.
The reading of plaint for such purpose should not be formal but practical, meaningful, realistic and rational so as to draw correct conclusion from pleadings rather than giving some artificial and functional meaning. Court while doing such exercise has to keep in mind true spirit of such provisions. For determination whether the suit is barred by law, averments contained in plaint can only be looked into and a decision in any case on assertion of defendants based on material foreign to record cannot be made. The Court is duty bound to look whether from the statement made in the plaint there was any cause of action available and whether the suit is barred by law or not. The assertion/statement made in the plaint reflects that allegations of collusiveness and mala fide have been alleged, which amount to playing fraud and in such facts and circumstances, the plaint cannot be rejected while invoking the provisions under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC as such allegations cannot be resolved in a summary manner, but recording of evidence is-must. When the administrative order is challenged: Civil Court being a Court of ultimate jurisdiction, even if jurisdiction is barred, is competent to see illegality and mala fide committed by any forum, Tribunal or authority and where any act/order of the authority is prima facie found to be without jurisdiction and illegal such matter 'Can be decided after framing' of issues and recording the evidence.
8. If a statute, provides that an order made by any authority acting under it shall not be called in question in ay Court at all and is necessary to oust.The jurisdiction of the Court that the authority should have been constituted as required by the statute, the person proceeded against should be subject to the jurisdiction of the authority, the ground on which the action is taken should be stated by the statute and the order made should be such as could have been made under statute. If these conditions are fulfilled, the ouster is complete but where the proceedings are taken mala fide and statute is used merely to cover an act which in fact is not taken though it purports to have been taken under the statute, the order will not be in accordance with the precedents as delivered by the Superior Courts.
9. In the present case the respondents are alleged to have mala fidely cancelled the allotment of the original allottee after a longtime when the disputed property was transferred to the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, the Civil Court could competently proceed to entertain and adjudicate the case even if the jurisdiction of Civil Court was expressly barred and confer upon Special Tribunal as Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction has the jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forum to ascertain that whether those- were taken in accordance with law, within the sphere allotted to it by such law, illegal, mala fide or contrary to principle of natural justice. The Civil Court is competent to determine that whether order has been passed on the basis ,of_ mala fides by a functionary while exercising its jurisdiction illegally and nullity in the eye of law and where statutory provisions have not been complied with, the Civil Cowl can set aside such order:
10. No doubt Civil Court has got no jurisdiction' about- proceedings of the Border Area Allotment Committee in respect of allotment of State land to the Army personnel's, but in the present case after issuing, patta Malkial and further. Transfer tranaterot the disputed property to a private Part Y/Petitioner, the interest of the petitioner is involved' andiltii6 remedy Clearly lies-in approaching the Civil court for the redress& of his grievance. -The learned lower revisional Court -has erred in law while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents.
11. ' In the light of the above discussion the instant .Writ petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional District-Judge Bahawalnagar is set aside and order passed by the - learned Trial Court dated 10.2.2005 is restored. However the respondents/defendants will be at liberty to raise preliminary issues before the learned Trial Court, who after recording evidence on preliminary as well as factual issues will decide the fate of the suit without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this judgment in any manner.