AHMAD ALI, J. The instant revision petition under section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitio ner against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Abbottabad, whereby , Civil Appeal No.66/13 of 2015 filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2015 of learned Civil Judge-XIII, Abbottabad in Civil Suit No.122/1 of 2015, was dismissed.
2. Brief and relevant facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that petitioner was owner to the extent of 60/100 share in forest situated within the limits of Khanbari Chilas, in Province of Gilgit-Baltistan as per agreement dated 09.06.1999 and respondent No.1/ defendant No.1, Syed Mubeen Shah son of Syed Maskan Shah has no right to claim 50/100 share in the disputed property and respondent No.2/defendant No.2, Secretary Forest Shamali Illaqa Jat Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit be directed to make entries in the relevant record to the above effect. The petitioner also prayed for permanent injunction and possession in the suit. The respondents were summoned, who appeared before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing their written statements and the divergent pleadings of the parties were reduced to several issues. After recording partial evidence of the petitioner in the case, the petitioner and respondent/defendant No.1 patched up the matter and both the parties prayed for decree as per compromise deed Ex.PA. However , the learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on the point of jurisdiction, returned the plaint alongwith relevant document under Order-VII Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 vide order dated 30.07.2015. The order of learned trial Court was maintained by the Appellate Court as well and appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition before this Court, which was in the first instance was disposed of, vide order dated 18.01.2016, whereby , while setting aside judgments and orders of both the Courts below , a decree for declaration was granted in favour of the petitioner against respondent No. 1.
3. Subsequently , Syed Afzal Shah and hundreds of others applicants filed petitions under section 12(2) C.P.C before this Court, thereby challenging the abovementioned judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and jurisdiction, who were also claiming their share in the disputed property and they were not impleaded as party in the suit. The said applications were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Court were set aside and the instant revision petition was restored to its original position and all the necessary parties claiming interest in the suit property were impleaded as party in the instant revision petition.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record of the case perused.
5. Certainly the issue before this Court pertains to territorial jurisdiction, as both the Courts below through impugned judgments/orders dated 30.07.20 1 5 and 29.08.2015 disposed of the matter under Order-VII Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In this regard sections 16 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code being relevant are reproduced below:- "16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate: Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law , suits;
(a) for the recovery of immovable property-with or without rent or profits;
(b) for the partition of Immovable property;
(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption In the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property ,
(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property;
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property ,
(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment; shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated , or, in the case of suits referred to in-clause (c), at, at the place where the cause of action his wholly or partly arisen:- Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the propert y is situate 1 [,or, in the case of suits referred to in clause (c), at the place where the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain."
(emphasis provided)
"20. Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises : Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
(a) the defendant, or each of the defenda nts where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either of the Court is given, or the defendants who reside, or carry on business, or personally work as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
Admittedly , in the instant case, Government of Northern Areas through Secretary Forest Gilgit Baltistan has been impleaded as defendant/respondent No.2 and the property i.e the disputed forest also situates at Chilas, District Dialer in the Province of Gilgit-Baltistan. Under section 16 (d) ibid, it has explicitly been provided that suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated and under section 20 CPC, it has been provided that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
6. Besides, many others private persons having claimed interest in the disputed property / forest have been arrayed as respondents in the instant revision petition by this Court, who belong to Tehsil Darail District Diamer , Gilgit Baltistan, as such, the suit in Civil Court, at Abbottabad cannot proceed/instituted in view of unambiguous aforementioned provisions of CPC. It has been observed by the Apex Court in Hail Abdul Malik's case (2003 SCMR 990 ) that: "The suit relating to the rights in the immovable property would lie before the Court within the local limits of which the property is situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and the relief being sought in the suit relates to the property , the suit would not be maintainable before any other Court except the one within territorial jurisdiction of which property is situated."
7. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, the interest of all the parties including the petitioner and defendant No.1, in the disputed property would amicably be determined and resolved in Civil Court at Gilgit-Baltistan, where property situates and defendants reside. As such, both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the facts and rightly held that Civil Court at Abbottabad lacks jurisdiction in the matter and returned the plaint under Order --VII Rule 10 CPC. No illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below , which could justify interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
8. For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition being without substance is accordingly dismissed.