' ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.--- This civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment dated 30-8-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Naushero Feroze whereby dismissing the Civil Appeal No,13 of 2010, filed by the applicants/plaintiffs, maintained the Order dated 5-1-2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil judge, Naushero Feroze on application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., in Suit No, 7 of 2006.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicants/ plaintiffs filed F.C. Suit No,7 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Naushero Feroze against the respondents/defendants, asserting therein that the suit property i,e, agricultural land, (described fully in para No,3 of the plaint), situated in Deh Jiskani, Taluka and District Naushero Feroze was originally owned and possessed by one Fazulullah Vistro who died in 1940 and after his death the suit-land was inherited by his legal heirs, namely, Khudadad (son), Hizbullah (son), Karamullah (son) as well two daughters and one wife; that such Foti Khata was mutated in the names of legal heirs of deceased Fazulullah Vistro on 28-10-1940 and the suit-land and other properties were partitioned among the legal heirs of said Fazulullah; that Khudadad Vistro, the father of the respondents/defendants Nos.1, 9, 10 and 11, also died in 1955 but Foti Khata was not mutated in the names of his legal heirs, however, private partition was effected in respect of suit property. It is the case of the applicants that the respondent No,1 with mala fide intention and ulterior motives moved an application before Revenue Authority without impleading them and other legal heirs of deceased Khudadad Vistro and others as party and he made a dead person, namely, Mst. Hasul daugter of Fazulullah (deceased) and no process was served upon her or her legal heirs but D.D.O. (Revenue) Naushehro Feroze on 17-3-2005 passed the Order of cancellation of Entry No,173; that the applicants obtained its true copy and preferred appeal under section 161 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 before Executive District Officer Revenue, Naushehro Feroze but the same was dismissed by him vide order, dated 22-10-2005 being time-barred, hence, cause of action accrued to plaintiff to file the civil suit for declaration and injunction, with following prayers:---
(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to, it may be declared that the order dated 27-3-2005, passed by the District Officer Revenue, Naushero Feroze for cancellation of Revenue Entry No,173, is against the law and jurisdiction and null and void in the eye of law.
(b) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction, in favour of the plaintiffs and restraining the defendants from alienating, dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit survey numbers from cancelling the Revenue Entry No,173 dated 12-3-1988, further the defendants may be restrained from mortgaging, leasing out, to any manner directly and indirectly through themselves, subordinates attorneys, agents, sub-attorneys etc. Till the disposal of the suit.
(c) That any other relief may be awarded to the plaintiffs on which this honourable Court deems fit and proper.
(d) That the costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs.
3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing written statements, wherein they denied the claim of applicants/plaintiffs. On 10-1-2007, the defendants filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., which was contested by the applicants and after hearing the learned counsel for parties, the learned trial Court allowed the said application and rejected the plaint in F.C. Suit No,7 of 2006, vide order dated 5-1-2010.
4. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the applicants/plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No,13 of 2010 under section 96 of C.P.C. Before the Court of Learned District Judge, Naushehro Feroze. The said appeal was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge Naushehro Feroze, who framed following point for determination of the Civil Appeal.
"Whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law?
' After hearing both the parties the learned Additional District Judge Naushehro Feroze, dismissed the said civil appeal and maintained the Order dated 5-1-2010 passed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 30-8-2010. Hence, this revision.
5. I have heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Najeebullah Jalbani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
6. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Karara mainly contended that the respondent No,6 did not serve any notice to the applicants before passing impugned order dated 17-3-2005, as required under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, the respondent No,6 violated the mandatory provision of law. On the point of maintainability of the suit , referring section 9 of C.P.C. And section 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, he contended that the civil courts being the court of ultimate jurisdiction are competent to try all suits of civil nature. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following case-law:---
(i) Abbasia Cooperative Bank (Now Punjab Cooperative Bank) v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 3)
(ii) Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan and another (PLD 1970 SC 180)
(iii) Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hamid Khan and others (PLD 1965 SC 671)
(iv) Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698)
(v) Muhammad Zafar and 23 others v. Yousuf Ali and 9 others (2003 CLC 1922)
(vi) Rais Muhammad Khan v. Ali Nawaz and others (1997 M LD 1309).
7. On the other hand Mr. Najeebullah Jalbani, supporting the impugned/orders of lower Courts below, contended that the applicants instead of questioning the Order dated 17-3-2005, passed by the respondent No,6, in hierarchy of the Land Revenue Act, filed civil suit seeking declaration that the said order of respondent No,6 is against the law and jurisdiction and null and void in the eye of law. As such the suit was itself not maintainable in law. He relied upon following case-law:---
(i) Abdul Rehman v. Sher Zaman and another (2004 CLC 1340)
(ii) Jan Muhammad Abbasi v. Mukhtiarkar. Estate, Larkana (Barrage Mukhtiarkar) and others (2007 CLC 1790)
(iii) Muhammad Jalat Khan v. Faisal Hayat Khan and 4 others (2003 CLC 837)
(iii) Muhammad Yousaf Khan Bugti and another v. Province of Sindh through Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others (2013 CLC 1155).
8. It appears from the perusal of material on record that District Officer (Revenue) Naushahro Feroze cancelled the Entry No,173 in favour of Mst. Hasul on 17-3-2005, the applicants preferred an appeal under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1976 before Executive District Officer (Revenue)
Naushahro Feroze and the same was also dismissed. Then next if the applicants were dissatisfied with the orders of District Officer Revenue and Executive District Officer Revenue, Naushahro Feroze, they ought to have filed Revision under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, before Member Board of Revenue. The applicants could not advance any justification for bypassing the highest forum in Revenue hierarchy, and for filing of civil suit directly before learned trial Court, which is barred by various provisions of law. In this regard I am fortified by the case of Muhammad Jalat (supra), in like situation where constitutional petition was preferred (here in similar situation civil suit has been preferred), it has been held that:--- "---5.161---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional Petition---Petitioner who had already impugned order of Additional Commissioner by filing appeal under S.161 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 had sought to challenge the same Order by a constitutional petition--- Petitioner could not advance any justification for bypassing highest forum in Revenue hierarchy which was seized of the matter and had not passed any final order so far, particularly when resort to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be taken even after the decision of his appeal by Member, Board of Revenue---High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction, would not step in where an adequate remedy to aggrieved person was available by way of appeal and a full-fledged machinery for redressal of grievances was provided under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967."
9. The learned courts below, under the circumstances, rightly held that the suit of the applicants before learned trial Court appears to be barred under section 172 of Land Revenue Act, which provides that:---
172. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts, in matter within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers:---
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer, is empowered by this Act to dispose of, or take cognizable of the matter in which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generally of the provisions of subsection (1), a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters namely:-
(i) ...........................................
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)...........................................
(vi) the correction of any entry in, a record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations;
10. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for applicants has been that this suit is competent before the learned trial Court in view of section 9 of C.P.C. And section 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. I have gone through these provisions of law. Per section 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, only suit for the declaratory decrees can be filed under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act.
Here the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction, whereby challenging the orders of District Officer Revenue and Executive District Officer Revenue, Naushahro Feroze. Section 9 of C.P.C. Is also not helpful to plaintiff for the reason that per section 9 of C.P.C. "Courts to try all civil suits unless barred". For ready reference the definition of section 9 of C.P.C. Is re-produced as under:--- ' Sec.9---Courts to try all Civil suits unless barred---The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."
11. The applicants instead of questioning the said order in hierarchy of the Land Revenue Act filed the civil suit for seeking declaration that said order is null, void, against the law and jurisdiction in eye of law. Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act precedes that if any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record of rights or in a periodical record as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The said section applies to a person who feels aggrieved by some entry in the record of rights, whereas in the case in hand the applicants/plaintiffs have questioned the order of cancellation of entry in their favour, passed by the respondent No,6; hence, I am of the view that section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
12. Section 11 of Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit which is filed on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer unless plaintiff proves that he has presented appeal allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation of such suit. Admittedly, applicants have not filed any appeal or revision before the Revenue Authority calling in question order passed by the respondent No,6, therefore, the suit of the applicants/plaintiff for declaration and injunction under Specific Relief Act, 1877 was barred under section 11 of Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. Suffice it to say an order may not be in accordance with law or correct order or one passed in violation of mandatory provisions of law but it cannot be said that the same has been passed without jurisdiction. Revenue Courts have exclusively jurisdiction to determine matter pertaining to land, revenue, partition etc.
13. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is. Distinguishable from the facts of the case in hands, as it is not the case of applicants that the order passed by the respondent No,6 for cancellation of revenue entry was based on fraud or in excess of jurisdiction.
14. In view of the above, as no case is made out on the ground of any material irregularity or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts or failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, the impugned orders of lower courts below do not call for any interference or exercise of discretion on any point of law in this case. Accordingly, the instant civil revision application is dismissed.