KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---This Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Sanghar , allowing Civil Appeal No.29 of 2006, re: Niaz Muhammad v. Province of Sindh and others , filed against order dated 08.07.2006, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khipro, whereby he rejected the plaint of F.C. Suit No.07 of 2006 of the respondent No.1, and remanded the case to the learned Trial Court with directions to frame legal and factual issues in the suit and to decide the suit on merits after providing full opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence.
2. Briefly , the facts of the case are that the plaintif f ["the respondents No.1. ] filed suit for Declaration and permanent Injunction against the defendants Nos.5 and 9 ["the applicants ], stating therein that the respondents No.1 is agriculturist residing in Village Faiz Muhammad. Hingorjo Circle Bhipi, Taluka Khipro, is in possession of the land comprising lot No.54C-No.567 and lot No.52C-No.568 measuring 40-00 acres situated in Deh Bhopi (Forest), Taluka Khipro. It is further averred that the suit land belongs to Forest Department and the respondent No.1 approached the respondents Nos.3 and 4 for its sanction on lease, but, he was told that he may participate in open auction whenever the suit land is brought in scheduled for its purchase. On 13.02.2006, respondent No.1 was informed by the respondent No.2 that the lease of the said suit land has already been granted to the respondent No.2 that the lease of the said suit land has already been granted to the applicants for the year 2006-07. It is further averred that respondent No.1 is resident of the area and the suit land is in his possession, but without holding open auction, the suit land was secretly leased out by the respondent No.5 for one year 200607 to the applicants. It is further stated that notice of auction, if any, published in newspaper wherein details of land were not shown, same was published with mala fide intention and the valuable land of the Government was shown leased out. It is further case of the respondent No.1 that the applicants have no legal right or character over the suit land for grant of lease and whereas the respondent No.1 is entitled for the grant of the lease of the suit land. The respondent No.1 then filed subject suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Trial Court which was contested by the respondents by filing their written statements, objec tion to application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and they also moved application under Order VII, Rule XI of the code of Civil Procedure [Act-V 1908] ["the code], which was allowed and consequently the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule XI of the code. The respondent No.1 preferred Civil Appeal No.29 of 2006, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial B Court with directions to frame legal and factual issues in the suit and to decide the suit on merits after providing full opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, hence the applicants have filed this revision application.
3. None is present for the applicants. There is also no intimation, although the name of the learned counsel for the applicants has appeared in the daily cause list. Record reflects that after 03.09.2012, the applicants have not taken any interest in proceeding with the matter . Mr. Aziz Ahmed Laghari, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Laghari, Advocate for the respond ent No.1, states that the said respondent having lost his interest in the matter , had taken away brief from them several years ago. Since the applicant and the private respondent have lost their interest in this Revision Application which is pending since 06.10.2006, therefore, I proceed to decide the instant matter by hearing the argumen ts of learned Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the official respondents.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, has mainly contended that the subject land is a Government Forest land and both the private parties have no right or title over the said Government land; that the respondent No.1 claiming that the subject land being Government land remained in his possession since his forefathers, has filed the subject suit challenging the action of the respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 regarding the alleged lease of the subject Government Forest land to the applicants in a secret manner as illegal, null, void ab initio, arbitrary , unjust, against the law and without lawful authority; and, that the learned Trial Court instead of rejecting the plaint, ought to have decided the case on merits and by dilating upon the action of the Forest Officers, if any, relating to the alleged lease of Government Forest land to the applicants in terms of the prayer clauses of the plaint. Learned Assistant Advocate General, prays for dismissal of the instant Civil Revision Application.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned Assistant Advocate General, and have gone through the material brought on the record with his assistance.
6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that admittedly the subject land is a Government Forest land and the applicants and the private respondent have no vested right or title over the said Government land; the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khipro without allowing the parties to lead their evidence for and against their respective claims rejected the plaint of the subject suit and while rejecting the plaint had given his findings in favour of the applicants without any evidence that too in this case in which the applicants were defendants, who themselves had not filed suit seeking declaration about their right and/or their legal character , without realizing the fact that the Government interest was involved in the subject suit involving the Government land and only defendant No.4 Divisional Forest Officer Afforestation Division Sanghar at Khipro, who was patently in league with the applicants, had filed his written statement whereas no proper oppo rtunity to the rest of the official respondents was given to file their written statements; even otherwise the written statements filed by the private respondent had given rise to various issues including the issue relating to the action of the official defendants being illegal, void, and without lawful authority or otherwise to be framed in terms of the pleadings of the parties which could only be decided after allowing the parties to adduce the evidence for and against their respective pleadings and claims and as such the order dated 08.07.2006, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khipro, rejecting the plain t being illegal and in excess of jurisdiction, has rightly been set-aside by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 19.08.2006, which is apt to the facts, circumstances and Law and the same does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 115 of the Code. And, thus, this Revision Application is liable to be dismissed.
These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 26.04.2019, whereby this Revision Application was dismissed.