ALI BAIG, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been directed under section 115 read with section 151, C.P.C., against the impugned judgment/decree dated 20-3-2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Chilas whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and against the impugned judgm ent and decree dated 07-05-2018 passe d by the learned District Judge Diamer in civil 1st appeal No. 02/2017 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has maintained the judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial Court and has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the plaintif f/petitioner .
2. The concise facts forming the background of the instant revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintif f instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the court of civil judge 1st class Chilas against the present respondents/ defendants claiming that the then Administrator/ Revenue Commissioner Northern Areas has allotted him suit land measuring 4 kanals situated at Herpandass Chilas vide allotment order No. Rev.Comm/Allot- 3/86 dated 18-10-1986 and in pursuance thereof possession of the disputed land was handed over to the petitioner/plaintif f by revenue field staff on 15-10-1987. Accordingly Petitioner/plaintif f dumped stones and other construction material on the suit/allotted land for construction of residential house but due to financial constraint the plaintif f could not construct the house and the respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 11 threw away the stones a few days prior to the institution of suit. He has further averred in the plaint that he had moved an application to the then Deputy Commissioner Diamer to allow him to construct the boundary wall around the suit land and after necessary inquiry the then Deputy Commissioner Diamer allowed the application of the present petitioner vide office order dated 19th March 2009, but the present respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 11 have been creating hindrance in construction of boundary wall. The plaintif f / petitioner has further averred that the Malikan-e-Botokhail have started to distribute their common lands and are bent upon to distribute the lands by including the allotted land of the petitioner/plaintif f which is illegal, and against the right of the plaintif f. The plaintif f/petitioner has sought declaration to the effect that he is owner of the disputed land and as a consequential relief has also sought permanent injunction by restraining the respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 1 1 from interfering in the suit property .
3. The contesting respondents/defendant s Nos. 6 to 11 hotly contested the suit by way of the filing their written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections inter alia that suit of the plaintif f is barred by law as the suit land is part of Herpandass which has been decreed in their favour vide order/decree of this court dated 15-7-2010 in appeal bearing No. 29/98, titled Malikan-e-Botogah v. Provincial Government , etc hence the defendants/respondents Nos. 6 to 1 1 are owners of suit land.
4. The defendants Nos.1 to 5 have also filed their joint written statement in the learned trial court wherein they have admitted that the suit land has been allotted to the plaintif f/petitioner by the competent authority but it was contended/averred that the allotment was made to the plaintif f/petitioner during ban period i.e. on 18-10-1986 as there was ban on allotment of Khalesa Sarkar lands imposed with effect from 04-4-1986. Thereafter , Aks Shajra was prepared and possession of suit land was delivered to the plaintif f/petitioner .
5. Any how, out of divergent pleadings of parties the learned trial court has framed necessary issues to determine/resolve the controversy between the parties on 11-10-2013 as evident from the record of trial court. After framing of issues the parties have filed their respective list of witnesses on 23-10-2013 and suit/case was adjourned to 21-11-2013 for plaintif f's evidence. During pendency of suit and before recording of evidence of the parties the present respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 11 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. The learned trial court after obtaining replication on behalf of the present petitioner/plaintif f and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 11 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and has rejected the plaint of the plaintif f vide order/judgment dated 30-3-2017.
6. The afore said judgment/order passe d by the learned trial court was challenged in the court of the learned District Judge Diamer through civil 1st appeal by present petitioner/plaintif f. The learned 1st appellate court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has also dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner and has maintained the judgment/ order dated 20-3-2017 passed by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 07-05-2018.
7. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned District Judge Diamer , the petitioner/ plaintif f has preferred the instant civil revision petition in this court.
8. Raja Shakeel Ahmed Advocate while appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the impugned judgments passed by both courts below are against law and facts and which are not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned trial court has summarily dismissed/rejected the suit without of looking into merits of the case and the learned 1st appellate court has also wrongly dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the petitioner by maintaining judgment/order passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued -that learned trial court has already framed issues out of divergent pleadings of parties and after framing of issues the learned trial court cannot reject the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. as such both the courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality while rejecting the suit of the petitioner/plaintif f under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., hence both the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that since the suit land has been allotted to the petitioner/plaintif f by the competent authority , therefore, the petitioner/ plaintif f is bona fide owner of suit land and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 6 in their written statement. The learne d counsel for the petitioner further argued that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the admit of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. hence, both the learned courts below have erroneously rejected the suit of the plaintif f under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C.
9. On the other hand Mr. Fida Ullah Advocate while appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 6 to 11 supported the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below by contending the suit of the plaintif f/petitioner was barred by law as the suit land is part of Herpandass which has been decreed in favour of the respondents/defendants Nos. 6 to 11 by this court vide judgment/order dated 15-7-2010 declaring Malikan-e- Botokhail as owners of Harpandass and suit land also falls within the limit of Harpandass, therefore the learned courts below have rightly rejected the suit of the plaintif f/present petitioner under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C.
10. I have heard, considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in light of the material available on record and have gone through record carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Admittedly the suit of the plaintif f/petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., therefore, first of all I would like to re-produce the operative part/para of judgment/order dated 20-3-2017 passed by the learned trial Court as under:- "The Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has passed a compromise decree dated 15-7-2010 in confirmation of compromise deed effected between the parties to the cross Appeals Nos. 33/1998 and 29/1998 restraining the Government authorities to allot the lands of Harpandass Chilas to anybody . It is also admitted by the petitioner that the allotment has been made in favour of the plaintiff on 18-10-1986 which falls within the banned period. Furthermore, that the only way to seek remedy for the plaintiff/respondent is available under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the Hon'ble Chief Court, hence the plaintiff has no cause of action against the petitioners, therefore, the petition under Order VII, Rule 11, read with section 151, C.P.C. moved by the petitioners/ defendants merits acceptance and the suit of the plaintiff is rejected within the contemplation of Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C. Cost to follow the event."
12. From bare reading of above re-produced operative part of judgment of trial court it reveals that the learned trial court has observed / held that this court has passed the compromise decree on 15-7-2010 restraining the Government authority to allot the land of Herpandass Chilas to anybody . Whereas the competent authority has allotted the suit land to the present petitio ner on 18th October 1986 and the said allotment had been confirmed by the Revenue Commissioner Northern Areas on 3rd March 1986, 24 years before passing of compromise decree by this court dated 15-7-2010. Moreover , the compromise decree dated 15-7-2010 has been passed in case titled Malikan-e-Botokhail v. Provincial Government Northern Areas and others and present petitioner/plaintif f and contesting respondents/ defendants Nos.6 to 11 were not party to the said compromise deed dated 08-7-2010 and compromise decree dated 15-7-2010 passed by this court which are not binding upon the present petitioner/plaintif f.
13. The suit land was allotted by the revenue commissioner to the present petitioner as evident from allotment order dated 18th October , 1986 and the compromise deed dated 8-7-2010 was made as rule of court by this court on 15-7-2010, wherein it has been mentioned that Malikan-e-Botokhail shall not claim any compensation for such lands which were allotted before 04-04-1986.
The present respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in their written statement have also admitted that the suit land was allotted to the plaintif f/petitioner and Deputy Commissioner/Collector Diamer who is custodian of Khalisa Sarkar lands in concerned District, vide office Order No.DK-29(7) 2008 dated 19th March 2009 has also permitted/allowed the petitioner/plaintif f to construct boundary wall around his allotted plot/suit land. Hence prima facie the suit land has been allotted to the petitioner by the competent authority .
14. As far as whether the suit land has been allotted to the petitioner during ban period or not is concerned, it is a question of fact which could not be resolv ed without recording of evidence and which could only be determined at the trial by the learned trial court after recording pro and contra evidt nce of parties. The learned trial court has already framed issues and case was fixed for plaintif f's evidence, when the suit of the petitioner was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In such circumstances the rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is totally uncalled for. In the circumstances to appreciate the proposition, the relevant provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are re-produced below:- S.11, C.P .C. Rejection of plaint .
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(1) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(2) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(3) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law .
15. From bare perusal of above re-produced provisions of law it appears that case of the present petitioner/plaintif f does not fall within the ambit of provisio ns of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and the learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court have committed material irregularity and illegality while rejecting the plaint of the petitioner/plaintif f under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. warranting interference by this court in exercise of it revisional jurisdiction.
16. For what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st appellate court have non suited the petitioner summarily without considering the relevant record or allowing the petitioners to lead pro and contra evidence, thus I am constrained to accept this civil revision petition, set aside the judgment/order dated 20-03-2017 passed by the learned trial court as well as the impugned judgment/decree dated 07-05-2018 passed by the learned 1st appellate court as ultra vires without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and with no legal effect. Consequently I remand back the case/suit of the petitioner to the learned trial court with the direction to decide the case/matter afresh after providing fair opportunities to the parties to produce their respective evidence.
17. Before patting with this judgment it clarified that my judgment shall not influence the trial court in any way in deciding matter/lis: Moreover , as the suit/case is lingering on since 30-01-2012, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the 'suit of the plaintif f within shortest possible time. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 15-04-2019. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.