' This petition arises out of the judgment of Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat dated 5-5-1981 whereby the Majlis-e-Shoora set aside the judgment of Kazi Lasbella dated 22-5-1980. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondents had filed a suit for possession of property measuring 8A-00R-P10 in Mauza Tharo, Tehsil Bela from which they were dispossessed. The total area of the land was 12A- 2R-11P out of which 3A-3R-1P had been auctioned by the Government taking it to be unclaimed property. The auctioned property was purchased by the defendant/petitioner. The allegations in the plaint were that the defendant/petitioner took over unlawful possession of the property and the plaintiff/respondents had filed a suit for the same in the year 1972. The present suit was filed on 26- 10-1978. The defendant/petitioner filed a written statement in which he pleaded that he did not have in his possession any property belonging to the respondent/plaintiff and the property in his possession was one purchased by him in the auction and he has been in possession since the year 1952. The Assistant Commissioner framed issues in the case and thereafter Qazi Lasbella re-cast the issues. He had dismissed the suit of the respondents for the reason that it was time-barred, otherwise he had held that the defendant/petitioner was auction purchaser of only 3A-3R-1P of the land.
2. The respondent filed an appeal to the Majlis-e-Shoora which was allowed and the appellate Court held that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was not time-barred since the defendant/petitioner had admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. This observation is made in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora in these words: {{URDU TEXT}} ' The counsel of the petitioner contended that in plaint filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs it was admitted that they had filed a suit in respect of the property in the year 1972 in which nothing was done and the defendant/petitioner had stated in the written statement that he had possession of the property since 1952. Computing time from any of the two dates it will be seen that the suit was filed after the expiry of more than 12 years and according to Article 142 of the Schedule I of the Limitation Act time would run from the date of dispossession. The other contention of the learned couqsel of the petitioner was that Limitation Act applies in Kalat Division, and the Majlis-e-Shoora could not ignore it.
3. I have seen the plaint and written statement filed in the case. The pleadings are defective. The copy of the plaint filed alongwith the petition shows that the plaintiff did not give any valuation of the suit, the date of accrual of the case of action or the verification. Similarly the written statement does not contain any verification and does not conform to the principles of pleadings as laid down in Order VIII, C. P. C. The Civil Procedure Code is applicable in those areas where Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat is in force. The applicability of the Civil Procedure Code in Kalat Division now Kalat and Mekran Divisions and part of Sibi Division was considered in the case of Mir Said Muhammad and another v. Mir Chakar and 6 others (1), it was held in that case that:- "Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani to the extent that there are provisions on the same subject in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though not identical stood repealed, and accordingly section 24 of the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani stood repealed by section 100, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being the provision contained in the C. P. C. On the same subject, not standing the fact that while in the former second appeals would lie both on questions of fact and law, in the latter they would be confined to law only."
The decision in this case was also considered in the case of Maul vi Muhamma Murad v. Jangi Khan (2). It is settled law now that where corresponding provisions are available in the Civil Procedure Code the provisions in relation to that subject contained in Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani would stand reported by virtue of section 4 of the Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance (XXI of 1960). The {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1973 Quetta 43 (2) PLD 1977 Quetta 79 {{FOOT NOTE}} provisions in Dustur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat relating to the form of suit are given in section 3 and the appendix to the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani. Since the topic-wise and subject-wise provisions regarding form and frame of suit are given in Orders VI, VII, VIII, and Appendix to the First Schedule in the C. P. C. The provisions of the Code will prevail. By operation of section 4 o Ordinance XXI of 1960 section 3 of the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kala will be deemed to have been repealed to the extent similar provisions ar available in the Code w. e. f the date of enforcement of Central Laws (Statut Reform) Ordinance XXI of 1960.
4. It has been noticed that the Courts of Kalat and Mekran Divisions do not insist on the observance of Law of Pleadings laid down in Order VI VII and VIII, of the C. P. C. Are not mere formalities. There is very good purpose and object behind these rules. If the pleadings of the parties are wanting in clarity the Court can examine the parties under Orders X, C. P. C to get the cases of parties properly, on record. The object of the law o pleadings is that the parties' whole case should be before the Court. After pleadings are in proper form, proper issues can be framed. Departure from the law of pleadings would cause embracement in the trial. Every fact which is material and proper for adjudication of a dispute between the parties should be stated in the pleadings. Unless all material facts are stated in the plaint, the defendant will not be in a position to deny o admit specifically the facts stated in the plaint. In the present case the plaintiff/respondents had not stated their cause of action properly in the suit and did not give material facts. For instance, they did not show as t when the defendant/petitioner dispossessed the plaintiff/ respondent. The did not also show as to whether the plaintiff/respondents had ever been in possession of the property.
They did not disclose the date as to when cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was not given. The defendant/petitioner put up case of his own and did not make any admissions or denial according to the provision of Order VIII, C. P. C. He says simply in the written statement that he had been in possession of the property since 1952. He has not stated as to whether he was in possession of the property purchased b him or was in possession of the property wrongfully obtained by dispossession of the plaintiff/respondents, since 1952. There is no verification of the plaint or written statement. No plea of limitation had been raised specifically apparently, for the reasons that date of dispossession had not been give by the plaintiff/respondents. For proper adjudication of a disputed question proper pleadings are essential -pre-requisite. Proper pleadings is not only matter of form but are important so that parties are put to their respective position vis-a-vis subject-matter of the suit. Departure from law of pleadings, as contained in the Code, should not be readily and easily condoned. 1, therefore, hold that there was material defect in the trial of the case. I allow the petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below and send the case back to the Kazi Lasbella who will allow opportunity to the parties to correct their pleadings by amendment. After the plaint is filed by the respondent, the defendant/petitioner will have opportunity for filing the written statement, according to law. The Courts of Kalat and Mekran Divisions and Kachhi District of Sibi-Division are enjoined to follow the law of pleadings as contained in the Civil Procedure Code.