' AAMER FAROOQ, J.---The facts leading to filing of the instant civil revision ire that the petitioner being owner in possession of land measuring six (6) Marlas situated in Khasra No, 18525, Khawat No, 837/1, Khatooni No, 1068/1, Mouza Tarli Kalan, Islamabad (the property) filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction before the Civil Court. Islamabad against the respondents with respect to the property.
2. Respondents No, 1 to 4 entered appearance in the suit and recorded their statement that they have no concern with the property, therefore, on the basis of the same, learned Trial Court rejected the 'plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) vide order dated 30.11.2013.
The petitioner assailed the referred order in appeal and moved an applicationfor appointment of Local. Commission. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2014, which has been assailed in the present civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alias submitted that the Courts below have exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as it is an established principle of law that while rejecting plaint' only the contents. Of the plaint are to be, seen and if on examination of the same the cause of action is revealed then provisions of order VII, Rule 11, CPC are not attracted. It -was further submitted that respondent No. 3 also instituted a. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property and in the same the learned Court seized of the matter passed a status quo order which is still in field Learned counsel emphasized that if the application for appointment of Local Commission had, been accepted the controversy coed have been resolved that whether respondents are raising construction adjacent to the property or not. It was further contended that reliance placed upon judgment titled "Malik Manzoor v. Zulfiqar Ali, & two others" reported as 2007 M LD 2012 is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the controversy still remains alive.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 defended the impugned orders and submitted that there is no jurisdictional error committed by She Courts below and hence the instant civil revision merits dismissal. It was 'further submitted that respondents No., 1 to 4 are not raising construction adjacent to the property, in fact the property of respondents No. 1 to 4 is at considerable distance from the suit land. Learned counsel also informed the Court that respondents No. 5 to 8 have passed away and the suit was filed against dead persons and, therefore, was not maintainable.
5. The petitioner instituted the suit for redressal of his grievance viz-a-viz - the property against the respondents alleging that they are encroaching upon the property which exclusively belongs to him. Instead of'contesting the suit respondents No, 1 to 4 made a statement that their property is at distance from the suit property and hence no cause of action exists in' favour of the petitioner.
Reliance was placed on by the Courts below at 2007 M LD 2012, the relevant part of which reads as follows:--- "5. Since the defendants-respondents have clearly declared (which has again been reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents) that the respondents have neither interfered in the suit property nor they intend to do so. Such a bold and unreserved statement should- have pacified the plaintiff/petitioner and he can certainly proceed against defendants/respondents if any encroachment in the suit properly was ever found.
5-A. In such a situation there does not appear to be any cause of action vested in the plaintiff/ petitioner to institute the suit and both the Courts have rightly applied the mind to reject the plaint. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs."
7. The facts and Circumstances of the above-mentioned case are quite similar to that of the present case, however, in the above-mentioned case an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC was filed for rejection of the plaint which has not been done so far in the instant matter. Under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC a Court can reject plaint if the same does not disclose a cause of action. In this regard it is an established principle of law that while deciding whether the plaintiff has cause of action in his favour or not contents of the plaint are to be examined only.
8. The Courts below have acted with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction while rejecting plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as they departed from the above-mentioned principle of law. Despite the statement made by respondents No, 1 to 4 that they have no concern with the suit property the petitioner insists that cause in his favour still survives, therefore, the controversy can only be adjudicated by recording evidence in the matter.
9. In view of above, instant civil revision is accepted and the impugned orders dated 30.11.2013 as well as 29.10.2014 are set aside.
Revision Petition Accepted/ Impugned Order Set Aside. {{SERVICE CASES START}} citizen's rights in point of law should depend on which Judge tries his case, or in what Court it is heard. The way to get things right is to hold thus: No Court or Tribunal has any jurisdiction to make an error of law on which the decision of the case depends. If it makes such an error, it goes outside its jurisdiction and certiorari will lie to correct it."
6. In the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1987 S.C. 447), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:--- "It is not right to say that the Tribunal, which is invested with the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, has the jurisdiction to decide it "rightly or wrongly" because the condition of the grant of jurisdiction is that it should decide the matter in accordance with the law. When the Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it because the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide rightly but not the jurisdiction to decide wrongly. Accordingly, when the Tribunal makes an error of law in deciding the matter before it, it goes outside its jurisdiction and, therefore, a determination of the Tribunal which is shown to be erroneous on a point of law can be quashed under the writ jurisdiction on the ground that it is in excess of its jurisdiction."
7. Even otherwise, the Courts of law are not supposed to perpetuate what is unjust and unfair by exploring a view of the subject. It cannot be ignored altogether that a repository of executive, judicial or quasi-judicial power is required to act in accordance with law. For the very condition for the conferment of such power is that it has to act in accordance with law. If and when it would go wrong in law it would go outside its jurisdiction. An order thus passed would be non-est. Such order cannot be protected simply because the repository of such power, has the power to pass such order. Lord Denning in his well-known book "the Discipline of law, while commenting on orders of this nature at page 74, observed as under:--- "This brings me to the latest case. In it I ventured to suggest that whenever a Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it and its decision is void, because Parliament only 'conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal on condition that it decided in accordance with the law".
' Another paragraph of this book at page 76 also merits a keen look which readg as Under:- "I would suggest that this distinction should now be discarded. The High Court has, and should have jurisdiction to control the proceedings of inferior Courts and Tribunals by way of judicial review. When they go wrong in law, the High Court should have power to put them right. Not only in the instant case to do justice to the complainant. But also so as to secure that all Courts and Tribunals, when faced with the same point of law, should decide it in the same way. It is intolerable that a explanation for an act which is prima facie against law and thus void. They should rather explore ways and means for undoing what is unfair and unjust. Even the question of limitation, if at all, created any impediment in the fair adjudication of the case, has to be looked from such angle of vision. When considered in this background, we are constrained to hold that the controversy urged before the Service Tribunal has not been considered and decided in its correct perspective.
Remand of the case would thus be inevitable. We, therefore, convert these petitions into appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and send the case back to the learned Service Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.