1. OALANDAR ALI KHAN, J-Through this revision petition under Section 115 CPC, the petitioners, M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd, Haripur, through its Managing Director and another call in question order dated 01.04.2010 of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Haripur, in Civil Appeal No.10/13 of 2010, whereby judgment and decree of Civil Judge-III, Haripur was set-aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to record pro and contra evidence of the parties and thereafter decide the case on merits.
2. 2- Earlier, the learned trial Court / Civil Judge-III, Haripur, had dismissed the suit of respondents No.1 to 11 / plaintiffs on acceptance of application of petitioners / defendants under clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. 3- Ghulam Zareena etc, respondents No.1 to 11 / plaintiffs had lodged a suit for declaration claiming therein their ownership and possession in respect of land measuring 14 kanals 12 marlas in khasra No.1179, situated in Village Talokar, Tehsil Haripur, and had disputed acquisition of the said land through award and had also challenged mutation No.1679, attested on 29.04.1984. The petitioners / defendants moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 CPC, mainly, on the ground that the suit was barred by law and plaint was liable to be rejected, as the suit land had been acquired through award dated 02.12.1967. The application, though resisted by respondents No.1 to 11 / plaintiffs, was accepted by the learned trial Court / Civil Judge-III, Haripur, and while invoking the provisions of clause (d) of Order VII rule 11 CPC, the suit was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2010.
4. 4- As stated above, the order of the learned trial Court was, however, reversed by the learned appellate Court and case was remanded to the learned trial Court for recording pro and contra evidence vide order impugned herein.
5. 5- The petitioners assailed order of the learned appellate Court, inter-alia, on the grounds that the suit land was acquired by the petitioners / defendants' Company under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to that effect copy of the award was also placed on record by the petitioners / defendants; that admittedly consolidation proceedings in village Talokar, Tehsil and District Haripur, were completed before the announcement of award, which fact was evident from the contents of the award, therefore, stance of the respondents / plaintiffs that khasra No.1179, which was acquired through the award, was previously khasra No.1095 was devoid of force; that award was given effect in the revenue record in the consolidation proceedings; that award under the Land Acquisition Act had the status of a decree; that award, which was made in the year 1967, could not be altered or modified or changed in the year 2009; that Land Acquisition Act was a special law, providing a special procedure, mechanism and hierarchy to challenge the validity of an award and that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts were expressly barred to question the validity of Land Acquisition award; that after acquisition of the suit land in the year 1967, the suit land is under the use and possession of the petitioners / defendants for the last 43 years; whereupon construction had been raised by the petitioners / defendants; that suit even against mutation attested in the year 1984 was barred by limitation; and that it was an established and well recognized principle of law that frivolous cases should be buried at its very inception.
6. 6- Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard, and record perused.
7. 7- The record would reveal that suit for declaration thereby challenging mutation No.1679 attested on 29.04.1984, was lodged in the year 2009, obviously, beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
8. The case of the respondents / plaintiffs was mainly based on the ground that the suit land was never acquired, but the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 02.12.1967, showed that the suit land bearing khasra No.1179, formed, part of the land acquired for the petitioners / defendants i.e. Telephone Industries of Pakistan. It has clearly been mentioned in the said award that consolidation proceedings in the village took place in the year 1965 66, and not after the award in the year 1968, as alleged by the respondents / plaintiffs.
9. 8- Apart from that, the suit land was transferred vide impugned mutation No.1679 attested on 29.04.1984, on the basis of award dated 02.12.1967, therefore, there was no doubt that the same property was acquired through the award, which has also been reflected in the revenue record ever since.
10. 9- Having said that, award under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been accorded status of judgment and degree (PLD 1993 K-578). In such a situation, the belated challenge of the award and transfer of land in consequence thereof was rightly questioned through application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioners / defendants, as law required that such like litigation be buried at its inception and to nib evil in the bud (2010 CLC 610 & PLD 2012 SC 247( c) ).
11. 10- In the circumstances, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to examination of other record with application under Order VII rule 11 CPC is also without force, as law does not forbid such an exercise while deciding application under Order VII rule 11 CPC.
12. (1994 M LD 2007, 1994 M LD 2345, 2000 CLC 1633 and 2002 SCM R 338).
13. 11- The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs to the effect that only a part of the suit land was acquired through award in the year 1962 is also without force for the simple reason that the entire acquisition proceedings right from issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act ibid were conducted in the year, 1967. Likewise, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs that the suit of the respondents / plaintiffs was within time, as every fresh entry in Jamabandi would accrue fresh cause of action, is also without substance for the reason that the respondents / plaintiffs have not challenged entries in the revenue record, rather they have impugned transfer of the suit land through mutation attested in the year 1984, in their suit lodged after almost 25 years.
14. 12- In the presence of so much overwhelming record, there was no need to have resort to recording of pro and contra evidence; and the impugned order of the learned appellate Court is, therefore, not sustainable in law.
15. 13- Consequently, on the acceptance of the revision petition, the impugned order of learned appellate Court dated 01.04.2010 is set-aside, and order of learned trial Court / Civil Judge-III, Haripur, dated 20.01.2010 is restored with the modification that instead of dismissal of suit, plaint is rejected under clause (d) of Order VII rule 11 CPC. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.