YAR MUHAMMAD, J--- This writ petition under Article 71(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment) and Self Governance Order, 2009 is directed against the Judgment dated 14.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge Diamer whereby the learned Judge while setting aside the Judgment dated 12.6.2014 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Chilas has remanded Suit No,5/2013 back to the learned Civil Judge, for adjudication on merit.
2. Facts in brief relevant to this litigation as transpiring from the perusal of the record is that petitioners filed the suit against contesting respondent-1 (Jumla Malikan Shadi Haiti) seeking declaration that they being off shoots of Mst. Haleema a Malik from petitioners/defendants Haiti are entitled to get shares like the defendants/petitioners in the shamilat land and forests and accordingly entitled to receive their due shares in the compensation of these lands which have been acquired for public school, DHQ hospital and WAPDA Colony Chilas etc. The suit was contested by the answering defendants through filing written statement whereby they raised many legal points as preliminary objection assailing that the suit is hit by principle of Res judicata.
3. During the proceedings, the learned District Attorney filed an application invoking the provisions of Rule-10 of Order-VII, C.P.C. For return of the plaint on the ground that the dispute between the parties exclusively falls within the domain and cognizance of Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, the suit be returned for presentation in proper forum. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, disposed of the said application in the affirmative and ordered return of the plaint vide Judgment dated 12.6.2014. This judgment was impugned before learned Additional District Judge through filing a revision petition and the learned Addl. District Judge while upsetting the judgment of the learned trial court, remanded the case back to the trial court for merit decision vide judgment dated 14.10.2014, hence this writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the dispute between the parties pertained to some compensation in respect of the land acquired for the construction of Diamer Basha Dam and its allied projects as such a special forum has been provided for determination of such disputes under the special law namely Land Acquisition Act, which excludes jurisdiction of the civil Court because for determination of compensation disputes a reference is competent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to be made to District/Referee Judge through Collector and the referee Judge have the ample power to determine the rights of the parties over the compensation amount. He maintained that while returning the plaint the learned trial court has acted in accordance with law but while upsetting the Judgment of the trial court the learned Addl. District Judge, committed illegality hence the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge be set aside.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the plaint actually the plaintiffs have sought declaration as primary relief whereas the compensation has sought as consequential/ ancillary relief. He argued that the grounds on which the suit is being contested by the defendants are enough to hold that the dispute between the parties goes out from the range of jurisdiction of the referee court, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge based on reasoning and law, hence maintainable.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to all aspects of the case keeping in view the arguments advanced before us by the respective counsel of the parties and the relevant law.
During she course of arguments, the. Learned counsel for the petitioners also assailed that against the order of acceptance of application for return of the plaint, an appeal was competent but revision was filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, and the learned Addl. District Judge, entertained and disposed of the revision petition, was wrong. We have minutely examined this very point for reasons that the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this point as ground of this revision petition. No doubt that the order dated 12.6.2014 passed. By the learned trial court accepting the application for return of the plaint was appealable but the plaintiffs filed a revision before the learned District Judge was not competent. Record shows that during the course of arguments on the revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge the petitioners have appeared before the learned Judge and they were heard through counsel but they remained mum about raising the objection regarding non-competency of the revision petition. The silence of the petitioners means that they submitted to the jurisdiction of the Addl. District Judge and raising of the objection after disposal of the revision petition is not acceptable. If the objection was raised before the learned Addl. District Judge owing to the competency of the revision petition, the learned Judge may able to convert the revision into appeal because the revision was filed within the period fixed for the appeal. Even if the arguments of the learned counsel be accepted that the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional defects, we are not inclined to interfere with it in writ jurisdiction for the reason that the learned Addl. District Judge has exercised his revisional powers to set aside an illegal order.
7. Conversion of one pleading into another is allowed in law and the object behind this is that mere on the basis of wrong shape of a pleading justice could not be refused. In this case while filing revision before the Addl. District Judge the respondents have narrowed their scope of arguments.
The respondents could avail broader scope for arguments if they had filed an appeal instead of revision before the learned Addl. District Judge. Anyhow, the revision petition has been disposed of on merit in which no objection was raised regarding non-competency of the revision.
8. Record of the case shows that some amount of compensation have received from the petitioners/defendants by the plaintiffs but about that amount the defendants/petitioners are of the contention that the said amount was paid to them, with collusion of one Iqbal Nasir and for recovery of that amount now they have also filed a suit in the court. The above suit is part of the instant suit No,05/2013 for the purpose of convenience both the suits could be decided by single judgment but if the instant suit is returned, the above referred suit for recovery of the paid compensation amount will still remain with the civil Court for adjudication and possibility is not ignored that conflicting judgments by the referee court and the civil court on reference petition and the suit for recovery may be passed and to avoid such judgments the disputes pertained to same cause are required to be adjudicated once and by same Court.
9. A bare perusal of written statement filed by the contesting defendants/petitioners would show in which they have contended that previously vest. Haleema from whom the plaintiffs derive rights had litigated for the relief during 1946 in which she has led and now the plaintiff's case is hit by the principle of res-judicate. This very issue also relates to civil Court and the learned trial Court can adjudicate this very point after holding a full dress trial. Moreover, the plaintiffs/respondents have also claimed share in the forests and shamilat lands which disputes ousts the jurisdiction of Collector land acquisition who acts in a limited scope to the disputes related to the compensation only. If the disputes mentioned in the plaint between the parties are sent to the Collector same will go beyond the mandate of Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act. No doubt that the suit if was purely for the compensation amount and no any other issues like issue of res-judicata and the title over other properties were involved then the Civil Suit was not competent.
10. The result of above discussion is that this writ Petition lacks merit and dismissed.