' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Abbottabad, whereby, the appeal filed by Respondent No, 1 against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2011 of Civil Judge-I, Havelian was accepted and case was remanded back to trial Court with the direction to proceed in accordance with law.
2. The perusal of the record reveals that respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in respect of property mentioned in the heading of the plaint, wherein, partition proceedings in Partition Case No, 296 dated 04.10.2007 alongwith Mutation No, 1129 attested on 26.07.2007 whereupon ' Tatima' was carved, were challenged being illegal, without jurisdiction, based on malice and against the established mode of partition. Perpetual injunction and in alternate possession was also sought. It was mainly averred in the plaint that the parties were joint owners in other Khasra numbers apart from disputed Khasra No, 529 measuring 11 'Canals'. An application under Order-VII Rule 10, CPC was moved by the present petitioner/defendant, which was disposed of by the learned trial Judge on 21.02.2011 treating the same to be under Order-VII Rule 11, CPC and thereby rejected the plaint, which was assailed before the learned District Judge, who vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 on acceptance of appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge and remanded the case with the direction to proceed in accordance with law.
3. The perusal of the application filed by the respondent in revenue hierarchy reveals that objection on partial partition was raised by the respondent and Khasra numbers were specifically mentioned therein, which was not properly addressed by the Court of Deputy District Officer (J), Abbottabad vide order dated 25.11.2006, as averred in the plaint by the plaintiff/ respondent. The application for review as well as application for dismissal of partition proceedings on the ground of partial partition was moved and were dismissed on 14.'7.2008 and 13.02.2006, respectively.
' It is pertinent to mention that averments made in the plaint were to be taken while dealing with the application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11.CPC without adverting to the defence plea. There is no cavil to the proposition that jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) is specifically barred, however, the revenue functionaries are empowered to act in accordance with the law in terms of the provisions of the Act (ibid) and the barring provision could not be construed so as to give unchecked cover and protection to the illegal acts of the tribunal authority from judicial review. The averments made in the plaint are to be taken on its face value in order to assume the jurisdiction by the Civil Court and for that purpose the contents of the plaint are relevant and not the plea of defence is to be taken into account. The Civil Court being- mother forum has ample jurisdiction to look into the matter relating to the nature of the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy as whether it was within the ambit of the powers entrusted to the revenue hierarchy by the legislature or has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in them. The question of jurisdiction is to be decided on the basis of consideration of averments made in the plaint, and for this purpose the Court of Appeal has rightly remanded the case to the trial Court to probe into the matter in order to ascertain the jurisdiction in the light of the contents of the plaint qua the orders G passed by the revenue authorities within the four corners of their jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court of appeal with conscious and application of independent mind.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition being without merits is dismissed.
' No order as to costs.