ALI BAIG, J.---Through this revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. the petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 07.8.2018 passed by learned District Judge Skardu, in C.F.A. No.137/2017; whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has directed the respondent No.1/ Tehsildar Skardu sand Assistant Commissioner Skardu to proceed to the site in question and get the public thorough fare demarcated strictly in accordance with the Aks Shajra within a week period.
2. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant, civil revision petition are that, the pre-sent petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court pleading / averring therein that the petitioner/plaintiff is owner of land under Khasra Nos. 770, 771, 772, 773, 774 and 776 khawat No. 35 situated at Hussainabad Skardu. A public water channel about. 5 to 7 feet width is existed under khasra No.786 on the north side of the land of the petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant No.1 in league with other respondents/defendants are bent upon to cause darnage/loss to the lands, walls and standing trees of the petitioner/ plaintiff on the lusis of illegal and wrong report submitted by respondent/ defendant No.2/Tehsildar Skardu, therefore, the respondents/ defendants may be restrained from interfering in the suit land and report issued by the respondent/defendant No.2 in respect of water channel under khasra No.786 being against the facts may be cancelled..
3. Before filing of the written statement, the present respondent/ defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of Plaint. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application has rejected the suit mainly on the ground that the petitioner/ plaintiff has not disclosed cause of action in the plaint vide the judgment/order dated 31.10.2017.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order/ judgment passed by the learned trial court, the present petitioner/plaintiff had filed civil first appeal in the court of learned District Judge Skardu. The learned District Judge, Skardu after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has passed the afore stated impugned judgment, hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the impugned judgments/orders passed by the learned courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgments/orders passed by both the learned courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed objections against the report of local commission submitted in the trial court on 29.8.2017, and had Mso filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint, but the learned trial court before disposal of aforesaid objections and application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. has rejected the plaint/ suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which is illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 and Standing AG for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 supported the impugned judgments/ orders passed by both the learned courts below by contending that the petitioner/plaintiff had not disclosed cause of action in the plaint, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the suit/plaint of petitioner / plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 further argued that on the consent of the present petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial court had appointed Mr. Ali Khan, Advocate and Nir. Muhammad Hussain DK, as local commission for demarcation of the disputed water Channel and land of the petitioner/plaintiff and learned local commission vide its report has stated that the present petitioner/plaintiff has encroached upon land of water Channel under khasra No.85 measuring 54 kanals 4 marlas by constructing boundary wall and planting trees, hence the petitioner/ plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record.
8. From perusal of impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court it transpires that the learned trial court has rejected the plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff in contemplation of clause (a) of Rule 11 Order of VII, C.P.C.
9. For ease and convenience, I would like to re-produce the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. as under:- Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) 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;
(c) 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.
10. Plain reading of the aforesaid re-produced provisions of law it reveals that the trial court shall reject the plaint, where it does not disclose cause of action. I have also gone through the contents of plaint and found that the petitioner/ plaintiff has not disclosed cause of action in the plaint which is mandatory to be disclosed in the plaint, thus, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
11. During pendency of suit the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint, but the petitioner/plaintiff has even not sought in the said petition that he wants to disclose cause of action in the plaint by amendment in the plaint, thus, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the suit/ plaint under the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C.
12. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view opinion that both the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the relevant provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., in its true perspective which does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction as both the courts below have not committed any material illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgments/orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect and non application of judicial mind by courts below, therefore, this civil revision petition having no merits is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. File.