MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.- This is upon the report of the District Food Controller Chitral that cost of gunny bags of Government supplied wheat are outstanding against many others contractors including Ghulam Hassan the plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1), whereby the order dated 10 October 1997 issued vide Endst: bearing No. 13179-96/9-14 (C) dated 10.10.1997 was directed for its recovery as arrears of land revenue by the learned Deputy Commissioner Chitral in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 114 of the Land Revenue Act 1967. Thereby, the said Ghulam Hassan introduced his suit for obtaining declaration cum permanent injunction that the above-referred Notification/order of the learned Deputy Commissioner Chitral is against law and facts. He is an ordinary person and has never been served in either government or semi-government departments particularly in the Food Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has the right for the prayer to be exonerated from the liability of payment of outstanding amount Rs. 2,05,495.50/- against him.
2. In the written statement all government officials have raised various legal and factual objections placing the liability upon the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) for payment in view of the report of the District Food Controller Chitral regarding cost of gunny bags of Government supplied wheat. The learned Civil Court after the averments taken in the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The parties were allowed to lead their evidence and accordingly the Plaintif f (herein the Respondent No. 1) appeared in his own defence as PW-1 and in support examined Khair-ud-Din as PW-2 and Said Rahman as PW-3. On the other hand, the Defendants (herein the Petitioners) examined Shakirullah as DW-1 and Rauf Aman DFC Food Department as DW-2.th
4. It is in Civil Suit No. 25/1 decided on 16.5.2008, the learned Civil Court was pleased to accord a decree in favour of the Plaintif f (herein the Respondent No. 1), wherein the relevant relief speaks of:- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. Next off, when the matter was taken up before the Court of learned District Judge/Zila Qazi Chitral in Civil Appeal No. 39/13 of 2008, whereby the learned District Judge was pleased holding the appeal dismissed as in view of the evidence the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) could not be termed to be a defaulter.
6. Having heard arguments of learned A.A.G appearing on behalf of Petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents, record with their valuable assistance gone through.
7. The learned A.A.G at the very outset, referred to the judgment reported in 1979 CLC 151 "Muhammad Mureed V/S Government of Punjab and 2 others", wherein the relevant citation is:- "Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Amount in dispute recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Suit for permanent injunction restrain Government from recovering certain amount as arrears of land revenue, such amount having been collected by plaintif f as arrears of revenue. Held. Not maintai nable and jurisdiction of civil Court in relation to such controversy specifically excluded."
The learned A.A.G on behalf of the Government officials mainly relied that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and where the recovery is to be effected through the process of arrears of land revenue the sun for permanent injunction restraining the Government from recovering certain amount as arrears of land revenue not maintainable and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in relation to such controversy has been ousted. While the referred wisdom contained in the above judgment when gone through it would reveal that in the said litigation in between the parties the recovery was to be effected from the land revenue with regard to crops from Kharif 1966 to Rabi 1967 and where the matter was exclusively to be dealt by the revenue Courts then such like recovery cannot refrain a person from filing of suit for permanent injunction. Here in this case the criteria for recovery of the cost of gunny bags of Government supplied wheat is altogether different. Mere report of the District Food Controller Chitral holding the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,495.50/- without rendition of accounts would not be possible to hold him for the payment of this huge amount particularly when the status of the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) is that he has rented his house for Food Department where the wheat bags were placed and there is no proper agreement in between the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) with the District Food Controller Chtiral.
Obviously holding him without rendition of the accounts would be unjustified for the recovery of outstanding amount against him.
Thus, where the report of the District Food Controller Chitral would lead to a cause of action for the recovery from the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) such like Notification of the learned Deputy Commissioner Chitral ought to be challenged by way of presentation of the suit for the declaration and permanent injunction which of course is the proper form of the suit.
8. Where the evidence of the Plaintiff (herein the Respondent No. 1) is gone through, it has rightly been appreciated by the learned Courts that without rendition of accounts this recovery cannot be effected from him.
When judgments of the learned fora below seen in this background, appear to be free from any taint of misreading or non-reading of evidence, as to justify interference therewith in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
9. The learned A.A.G appearing on behalf of the government officials of his own may take the matter with the NAB Authorities or the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ihtisab Commission for the recovery of huge amount outstanding against all those persons from whom the recovery has not so far been effected. It is also to mention here that the findings and observation in this judgment and that of the learned Courts below shall not affect any inquiry to be followed by investigation, if the matter is brought before the respective agencies by the learned A.A.G.
10. In view of the above, this revision petition has got no force which is hereby dismissed.