Revision petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondents contending that they had purchased disputed land through oral sale and in this regard Mutation No. 4064 was sanctioned on 18.04.2012 in consequence of which obtained possession of the land. Respondent No. 4 in connivance with revenue staff on the pretext of correction of Khasra Gardawari obtained orders dated 09.07.2013 and 06.12.2013 passed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 which are against facts and law collusively passed and*based upon fraud. Respondent No. 4 appeared in the Court and not only submitted written statement but also filed an application under Order WI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contended therein that as the matter related to correction of revenue record which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue Courts, so no civil suit could be filed as jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; hence, sought that plaint may be rejected. Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint through impugned order dated 30.09.2014. The petitioners filed appeal, which was dismissed- by appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.05.2015 and upheld the order passed by the trial Court. Against both .these orders, the civil revision has been filed with the prayer that both order and judgment passed by Courts below may be set aside being illegal and against facts.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under Section 172(2)(vi) of The West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, though jurisdiction of Civil Court has been barred but it related to correction of revenue record, however, a declaratory suit is competent before the Civil Court under Section 53 of The Act, 1967; In support of his arguments, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as "Shahid Iftikhar and another versus Mst. Tasneem Rani and 4 others" (2017 CLC 264 Lahore).
3.Learned counsel for the respondents states that both impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below are legally correct. The dispute/matter was related to correction of revenue record and under Section 172 sub-Section 2(vi) of the Revenue Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in this respect. Further states that it is provided under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that in case a plaint is hit under any provision of law same can be rejected summarily, thus, both order and judgment passed by Courts below are legally correct. Learned counsel placed reliance on the dictum reported as "Administrator Thal , Development through EACO Bhakkar and others versus Ali Muhammad" (2012 SCM R 730), "Mst. Gulab Khatoon versus Muhammad Yaqub and another" (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 324), "Sardar Khan versus Ghulam Hussain and others" (PM 2003 SC (AJ&K) 119), "Sardar Khan versus Ghulam Hussain and 31 others"
(2003 YLR 1788), "Masroor Ali Khan versus Jamshed Alam and 2 others" (1999 M LD 2583), "Khawaja Muhammad Akbar and 5 others versus Khawoda Fateh Muhammad and 15 others' (1993 MLD 76), "Muhammad Naar versus Muhammad Yousaf through Genera: Attorney and others" -(2012 M LD 439) and "Zahid Hussain 'and 10 others versus Shanumuddin and 9 others" (2014 CU: 1334), 4.After hearing arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the record.
5.According to the pleadings, the factum of mutation of Sale No. 4064 dated 18.04.2012 is a common ground between the parties regarding its execution. The conVoversy started in respect of possession which Respondent No. 3 tried to resolve through revenue forum while contending that petitioners in connivance with the revenue staff had' taken over possession of the land not sold to them and got incorrect entries in the Mama Garclawari. It is evident from the record that this plea of Respondent No 3 won favour with Respondents No. 2 and 3 resulted into passing impugned order and judgment dated 09,07.2013 and 06,12 2013 respectively. If this preposition is taken up tentatively, it appears that the declaratory suit was not maintainable due to bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts Under Section 172 of The Revenue Act, 1967, however, to the mind of this Court the real controversy is relating to possession as to whether same is in line with Mutation No. 4064 or in violation thereof, so it could only be decided by the Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction.
Further, the controversy relating to possession required evidence of the parties and such proceedings can only be conducted by the Civil Court under Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. In this respect reliance can be placed on the judgment Shahid Iftikhar and another versus Mst. Tasneem Rani and 4 others" (2017 CLC 264 Lahore). In addition to it, it is expedient to observe that such controversy which required evidence as mentioned above can be recorded only by Civil Court as it is so then the revenue forum used to rely on the reports of the lower formation of the revenue set up, as such, the controversy/dispute can only be .resolved by the Civil Court in a declaratory suit.
6. It goes without saying that in order to grapple with the bulk of cases and expedient/administration of justice, it is hoped that the Court of competent jurisdiction should not dilute upon technicalities in cases where jurisdiction is to be determined whether the competent Court of law can take cognizance of the issue or not because the vital essences envisaged in the statutes are that the Courts are established to exercise jurisdiction and curbed down with iron hand the issues involving in the cases, so the miseries of people may come to an end and Courts should provide a cushion in the shape of solacing grievance of the litigants who remained wagered in the corridors of the Courts. Normally the Apex Court of the country deprecated the practice of the Court while curtailing jurisdiction in the issues and appreciated when the Courts extend their jurisdiction.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in my humble view are not found applicable to the facts of the instant civil revision as it has been observed above that the us is relating to determination of question of possession and in this respect Para No. 4 of the plaint and its reply in the written statement spells out that controversy is about possession on the disputed land. Resultantly, the civil revision is accepted and both impugned order and judgment are declared illegal, result of wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below, same are set aside and suit titled "Muhammad Zaman, etc. versus Province of Punjab, etc." is deemed to be pending with the trial Court who shall proceed and decide it in accordance with law after completion of all legal proceedings.