' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, who accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No, 7 and set aside the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalpur, whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC filed by respondent No, 7 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration on the grounds that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 28-kanals, 13-marlas, 546/3200 shares of total land/Khata 160-kanals, vide mutation No, 820, dated 11.4.2008 situated in Chak No, 12/B.C.
According to the Register of Record-of-Rights for the year 2006-2007. The defendants/respondents No, 3 to 7 have no concern whatsoever with the said property and perpetual and mandatory injunction was also sought that the defendants/ respondents No, 3 to 7 should be restrained forever from cancellation of the, said mutation in any way and also be restrained from challenging revenue record forever but she with mala fide intention and inducement of her father and without any legal justification started litigation relating land of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for declaration after unwarranted order of Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur against respondents No, 3 to 7 before the Civil Court, Bahawalpur. Respondents No, 3 to 7 appeared before the learned Trial Court and submitted their respective written statements.
During the pendency of the suit, respondent No, 7 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioner by filing written reply. After hearing the parties and perusing the law, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application filed by respondent No, 7 vide its order dated 7.3.2013. Being aggrieved of the said order, respondent No, 7 filed a civil revision before the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur who accepted the same and rejected the suit filed by the petitioner vide order dated 27.4.2013, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the learned. District Judge, Bahawalpur is illegal, unwarranted and is liable to be set aside; that the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur while passing the impugned order has not applied his judicious mind; that application filed by respondent No, 7 for rejection of the plaint was found by the learned Trial Court as unwarranted; that the orders of the learned Trial Court are at variance and need interference; that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, which was passed after properly hearing the parties and perusing the law and facts; that neither respondent No, 7 purchased the suit property nor she had such financial position to purchase the suit property; that there is factual controversy between the parties which can only be settled by the learned Civil Court after recording of evidence; therefore, the r. Impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has relied upon the judgments reported as Muhammad Sarwar v. Ahmad Khan through L.Rs, and 2 others (2012 CLC 284), Muhammad Rahim v. Malik Daud Khan and 6 others (2011 CLC 490), Nazeer Ahmad and others v. Ghulam Mehdi and others (1988 SCM R 824) and Khushi Muhammad v. Abdullah Shah (PLD 1964 W.P. (Rev.) 101).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No, 3 to 7 has vehemently opposed this petition and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondents No, 3 to 7 has contended that the impugned order is well-reasoned and the learned District Judge has committed no illegality or irregularity in delivering the same, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
7. From the perusal of application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, filed by respondent No, 7, it is revealed that the allegation of fraud and forgery has been levelled against the present petitioner in getting the attestation of mutation No, 820, dated 11.4.2008, in his favour. The same objection has been taken in the written statement earlier filed by respondent No, 7 as defendant No,
5. This mutation was challenged by respondent No, 7 through' filing an appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalpur, which was dismissed by him vide order dated 11.4.2009 against which, a revision petition was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur.
8. In the meanwhile the present suit, out of which this writ petition has arisen, was filed by the petitioner against the revenue authorities as well as against respondent No,
7. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No 5 vide order dated 25.3.2012 accepted the revision petition and cancelled the mutation No 820, the subject-matter of the civil suit pending before the Civil Court. The order passed by respondent No, 5 has been assailed by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC filed by the respondent/No, 7 whereas the revisional Court by accepting the revision petition reversed the findings of the Trial Court and accepted the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and the plaint of the petitioner was rejected. Perusal of the impugned judgment manifestly reflects that the Appellate Court while accepting the revision petition and rejecting the plaint of the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Revenue as well as the proceedings initiated against the petitioner before the Anti-Corruption Authorities whereby an FIR was registered against the petitioner u/ss, 420/468/471/419, PPC read with Section 5/2/47 of PCA, 1947.
9. Under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, CPC the plaint can be rejected on account of conditions which have been enumerated as follows:--- "11. Rejection of Plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a, time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
10. In my opinion, none of the grounds were available to the revisional Court to reject the plaint of the petitioner at the revisional stage. The case-law cited by the revisional Court as 2012 SCM R 730 is not applicable to the present case and the said judgment of Hon'ble Court is quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The petitioner has disclosed the cause of action in the plaint and respondent No, 7 while filing the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC have agitated the matter on the basis of fraud and forgery and the Revenue Courts are not competent to decide the complicated question of commission of fraud and forgery and that too without the allegation of connivance of the revenue staff, The Civil Court being the Court of plenary jurisdiction has the lawful authority to proceed with the civil suit and as such the Trial Court was legally justified to reject the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC whereas the revisional Court has committed gross illegality and jurisdictional error in accepting the revision petition and rejecting the plaint of the petitioner, 11-. The upshot discussion is that the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2013 passed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur is set aside and the order dated 07.3.2013 passed by the Trial Court is upheld.
Resultantly, suit of the petitioner will be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court which shall be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law.