SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J. This civil revision has been directed against the order and judgment/decree dated 16.11.2018, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, while dismissing the application of the petitioners for framing of issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,30,000/- as remaining contract amount filed by the respondent s; and judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019, whereby appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that the respondents filed a suit for recovery of the remaining contract amount of Rs.4,30 ,000/- alleging that the petitioners entere d into a contract regarding land measuring 20 acres situated in Mouza Phularwan, District Sheikhupura, owned by the respondents for one year i.e. Kharif 2015 to Rabi 2016, at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre i.e. for a total consideration of Rs.13,30,000/-, paid Rs.900,000/- as an advance, took possession of the land and cultivated paddy crop in Kharif 2015 and wheat crop in Rabi 2016, but without paying the remaining contract amount of Rs.4,30,000/- vacated the land. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement and controverted all the contentions made in the plaint.
3. The learned trial Court framed issues out of divergent pleadings, recorded evidence of the parties and fixed the case for arguments, when the petitioners moved an application for framing of an issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments of the parties, while dismissing the said application, decreed the suit of the respondents, through the order/judgment and decree dated 16.11.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal, which also met with the same fate, through judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly , the suit filed by the respondents was for recovery of the remaining amount of contract of lease entered into between the parties for agricultural land for a period of one year i.e. Kharif 2015 to Rabi 2016. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein although they admitted the case to the extent of contract but raised certain preliminary objections. However , they did not raise a specific objection regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and filed an application for framing of an issue in that regard at a later stage, which was dismissed through a separate order at the time of decision of the main suit. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that non-raising of objectio n in the written statement, filing of application for framing of issue in this behalf at a belated stage or non-mentioning of the provision of law therein, does not empower the trial Court to try a suit, which otherwise is not within its jurisdiction, has much weight and cannot be kept aside. The instant matter relates to the remaining amount of contract regarding lease of agricultural land. Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act is divided into three groups and suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under Section 14 are covered by Section 77(3)(n), which shall be instituted and determined by Revenue Courts, and no other Courts shall take cognizance of any such dispute or matter with respect to which any suit might be instituted. For ready reference, Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is reproduced below:- "77. Revenue Courts and suits cognizable by them.- (1) When a Revenue Officer is exercising jurisdiction with respect to any such suit as is described in sub-section (3), or with respect to an appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, he shall be called a Revenue Court.
(2) There shall be the same classes of Revenue Courts as of Revenue Officers under this Act, and, in the absence of any order of the [Provincial Government] to the contrary , a Revenue Officer of any class having jurisdiction within any local limits under this Act shall be a Revenue Court of the same class having jurisdiction within the same local limits.
(3) The following suits shall be instituted in, and heard and determined by, Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any [such] dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted.
Provided that-.
(1) Procedure where revenue matter is raised in Civil Court. Where in a suit cognizable by and institu ted a Civil Court it becomes necessary to decide any matter which can under this Sub-Section be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court, the Civil Court shall endorse upon the plaint the nature of the matter for decision and the particulars required by Order VII, rule 10, C.P .C., and return the plaint for presentation to Collector;
(2) On the plaint being presented to the Collector , the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds [rupees ten thousand] or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in Section 77 (3).
First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and in other case may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the 1st grade for decision.
First Group
(a) suit between landlord and tenant for enhancement or reduction of rent under Section 24;
(b) Suit between landlord and tenant for addition to or abatement of rent under Section 28, or for commutation of rent;
(c) Suits under Section 34 for the determi nation of rent or other sum on the expiration of the term of an assessment of land revenue; and suits relating to the rent to be paid under a mortgage made in accordance with form (c) as prescribed by Section 6 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Revenue Act, 1900]; Second Group
(d) suits by a tenant to establish a claim to a right of occupancy , or by landlord to prove that a tenant has not such a right;
(e) suits by a landlord to eject a tenant;
(f) suits by a tenant under Section 45 to contest liability to ejectment, when notice of ejectment has been served;
(g) suits by a tenant under Section 50 for recovery of possession or occupancy , or for compensation, or for both;
(h) suits by a landlord to set aside a trans fer made of a right of occupancy or to dispossess a person to whom such a transfer has been made , or for both purposes;
(i) any other suit between landlord and tenant arising out of the lease or conditions on which a tenancy is held;
(j) suits for sums payable on account of village cesses or village expense;
(k) suits for a co-sharer in an estate or holding for a share of the profits thereof or for a settlement of accounts;
(l) suits for the recovery of over-payments of rent or land revenue or of any other demand for which a, suit lies in a Revenue Court under this Sub-Section;
(m) suits relating to the emolument of [***] kanungos, or village of ficers; Third Group
(n) suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under Section 14;
(o) suits by a land owner to recover moneys claimed as due for the enjoyment of rights in or over land or in water including rights of irrigation, rights over fisheries, rights of pasturage and forest rights;
(p) suit for sums payable on account of land-revenue of any other demand recoverable as an arrear of land- revenue under any enactment for the time being in force , and by a superior land owner for other sums due to him as such.
(4) Except as otherwise provided by any rule made by the (Board of Revenue) in this behalf:--
(a) a Collector may hear and determine any of the suits mentioned in sub-Section (3);
(b) an Assistant Collector of the first grade may hear and determine any of the suits mentioned in the second and third groups of that sub-Section, and, if he has by name been specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government any of the suits mentioned in the first group; and
(c) an Assistant Collector of the second grade may hear and determine any of the suits mentioned in the third group.
[(5) The limitation for suits mentioned in sub-Section (3) (Third Group), clause (n), shall be one year from the day the rent or money equivalent to rent or sums recoverable become due]."
The law reproduced above clearly provide a procedure to deal with the revenue matter raised in the Civil Court, if any suit has been filed before it where matter is to be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court, it is necessary for the Civil Court to endorse upon the plaint the nature of the matter and return the same as required by Order VII, Rule 10, CPC, for presentation to Collector . The learned trial Court, however, did not deal with the case in the manner provided by law. Reference in this regard can also be placed upon the case of Shah Nawaz Begum vs. Muhammad Ramzan ( 2002 CLC 1738 ), wherein it has been held as under:- "9. Section 77 is divided into three groups. Suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under section 14 are covered by section 77(2)(n). Whereas, suits arising between landlord and tenant on account of the lease or conditions on which a tenancy is held are covered under the second group i.e. section 77(2)(1). The admitted position is that a lease deed was drawn between the parties and the money claimed is against the amount of the lease and of losses against conditions arising out of the lease.
10. Reliance is also placed on the case titled Muhammad Hafeez v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha and others 1981 SCMR 1171 for coming to the conclusion that there is no force in this revision petition and the findings of the learned First Appellate Court were correct except that the plaint had to be returned and was to be presented to the Collector under the provisions of Order 7, rule 10, CPC which modification is now made in the impugned judgment and whereafter the revision petition having no merits, is dismissed. No costs."
6. In view of the law reproduced above and the judgment relied upon, the learned trial Court wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioners without taking into consideration the relevant law on the subject and decreed the suit filed by the respondents. The learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of the petitioners with a wrong observation that in view of the expiry of lease period and fixed lease amount the suit in question was maintainable before the Civil Court.
7. As regards the case law Muhammad Ramzan through Ashiq Muhammad and others vs. Pir Bakhsh and others (2000 SCMR 522), relied upon by the respondents the facts of that case are distinguishable as acquisition of ownership rights and declaration of title in the land was also involved therein. The other case law relied upon by the respondents is also distinguishable to the facts of the instant case.
8. For what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court. Resultantly , the application of the petitioners as well as the suit filed by the respondents shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.