ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C., the petitio ners/defendants have challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 3-7-2018 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar in Civil Suit No. 18/2012, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioners/defendants under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C. for rejection of plaint.
2. Succinctly facts forming back ground of the instant civil revision petition are that the present respondent No.1 /plaintif f had instituted a suit for recovery of an amount amounting to Rs. 1200,000/- on account of malicious prosecution against the present petitioners/ defendants in the Trial Court as the present petitioners/defendants had got registered a criminal case against the present respondent No. 1/plaintif f and others under sections 188,109 and 447, P .P.C. vide FIR No. 01/2006 dated 23.01.2006 at Police Station Sikandarabad Nagar .
3. After completion of usual investigation challan against the present respondent No.1/plaintif f and others was submitted in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar and a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1/plaintif f and some others persons bearing criminal case No. 59/2006. During pendency of the aforesaid criminal case before the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar , the present responden t No.1/plaintif f and some others filed an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for their acquittal and the learned Trial Magistrate after hearing arguments on behalf of the accused/plaintif f and State has acquitted the present respondent No.1/ plaintif f under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25-10-2016. After his acquittal the present respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1200,000/- on account of malicious prosecution against the present petitioners/ defendants in the Trial Court. During pendency of the aforesaid suit the present petitioners/defend ants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint in the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court after obtaining replication and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties dismissed the afore said petitio n of the present petitioners vide the impugned order dated 3-7- 2018, hence this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to Law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Trial Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the learned Trial Court lacks jurisdiction either to try or to entertain or to adjudicate upon the matter under the provisions of Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioner No.1 was performing his duty as Revenue Officer/T ehsildar Nagar , at the time of registration of FIR against the present respondents/plaintif fs and the petitioner No.1 has got registered a criminal case against the respondent No.1/plaintif f in his official capacity/ in the capacity of a Revenue Officer hence, under Section 181 of West Pakistan Revenue Act, 1967 no suit shall lie against the petitioner No. 1, thus no suit for defamation shall lie against the petitioners and suit of the plaintif f/respondent N o. 1 is not maintainable and liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C .P .0 .
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ plaintif f opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Trial Court by contending that the petitioners had got registered a baseless criminal case against the respondent No. 1/plaintif f with mala fide intention and the respondent No.1 and others have been suffering mental and physical agony of long trial of 10 years and have spent huge amount on the litigation as such the plaintif f/respondent No.1 is entitled to get amount of damages from the petitioners and suit of plaintif fs/ respondents is maintainable and the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P .C. vide the impugned order/judgment which may be maintained.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. From perusal of the record it transpires that two ladies namely Mst. Shabani and Mst. Farhad had submitted an application against the present respondent No.1 and some other persons in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Nagar regarding removal of encroachment on the common land of the above named ladies on 29-11-2005, which was entrusted to the petitioner No.1 by Assistant Commissioner Nagar as the petitioner No.1 was performing his duties as Tehsildar Nagar . The petitioner No.1 has disposed of the said petition as Revenue Officer and settled the matter/dispute by setting the boundaries of the disputed land and later on the present respondent No.1 and his co- accused demolished the boundaries unlawfully , erected by the petitioner No. 1/Tehsildar Nagar and accordingly the petitioner /defendant No.1 has got registered the afore said criminal case against the present respondent No.1/plaintif f and his co-accused.
8. Admittedly the petitioner No.1 namely Khush Baig was serving as Revenue Officer/T ehsildar Nagar at the time of registration of criminal case against the respondent No.1/plaintif f and he has passed the order directing SHO Police Station Sikandarabad Nagar to lodge FIR against the respondent No.1/plaintif f and his co-accused in the capacity of Revenue Officer under the Law. The acts of Revenue Officers are protected by Section 181 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 which contemplates that "no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Revenue Officer for anything done or ordered to be done in a good faith by him". Thus suit filed against the present petitioners/ defendants in the Trial Court is barred under Section 181 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and suit of the respondents/plaintif fs is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1(d) of C.P .C.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment/order dated 7.3.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside. Consequently the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintif f is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d), C.P.C. in view of provisions of section 181 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.