Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. This appeal, by leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 26.02.2020, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the captioned appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant, herein, filed a suit for declaration and revocation of gift-deed dated 09.03.2012 and mutation sanctioned on 29.03.2012, pertaining to the land comprising khewat No. 131, survey No. 466, measuring 3 kanal, 10 marla, against the defendant-respondents, herein, in the Court of Civil Judge, Dhirkot. On filing of the said suit, the defendant-respondents, herein, were summoned, who appeared before the Court and filed the written statement. The learned trial Court framed the issues and declared vide order dated 11.10.2018 that Issues No. 5 and 6 need recording of evidence.
Against the said order of the trial Court, the respondents, herein, filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Dhirkot, on 30.10.2018, which was accepted and the plaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant, herein, was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019. Against the said judgment and decree the appellant, herein, approached the High Court by filing an appeal. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. A notice was issued to the appellant as well as his counsel i.e. Syed Shafqat Hussain Gardezi, Advocate, for filing written arguments within a period of fortnight but they failed to file the same, hence, we are left with no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of available record.
4. Raja Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, the learned Advocate representing the respondents, filed written arguments, wherein, he defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the plaint was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Dhirkot, in revisional jurisdiction and not in original jurisdiction, hence, the appeal before the High Court was not competent against the rejection order rather writ petition was competent in view of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rule of law laid down by the superior Courts in various pronouncements. He added that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is in accordance with law, hence, interference by this Court is not warranted. He prayed for dismissal of appeal on this sole ground without going into the merits and demerits of the case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case reported as Murtaza Hussain vs. Abdul Aziz and others [2014 SCR 1091].
5. We have considered the written arguments filed by the learned Advocate representing the respondents and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Civil Judge Dhirkot on the stage of framing issues, directed the parties to lead evidence on Issues No. 4 and 5, vide order dated 11.10.2018. The respondents, herein, challenged the said order by way of revision petition before the Additional District Judge Dhirkot. The learned Additional District Judge Dhirkot while accepting the revision petition set aside the order dated 11.10.2018, passed by the trial Court and rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, CPC, vide judgment dated 20.03.2019. The appellants, herein, challenged the said judgment by way of appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020, which is the subject- matter of the instant appeal.
6. First of all, we would like to attend the question of competency of appeal before the High Court against the judgment of the Additional District Judge Dhirkot. Under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction. For proper appreciation Section 96 is reproduced as under: "96. Appeal from original decree.--(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties."
A plain reading of the above reproduced statutory provision clearly postulates that first appeal can be filed against the inst the judgment and decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction and not revisional or appellate jurisdiction. We are fortified in our view by the case reported as Murtaza Hussain vs. Abdul Aziz and 2 others [2014 SCR 1091], wherein, it has been observed by this Court as under: "6. Under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction. For proper appreciation Section 96 is reproduced as under:- "96. Appeal from original decree. (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with consent of parties."
It has been further held in para 7 of the "A plain reading of the Section shows that under Section 96, CPC, the appeal can be filed from the decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction and not the revisional or appellate jurisdiction."
The same view was reiterated by this Court in a recent judgment reported as Abid Hussain vs. Khalid Hussian and others [2022 SCR 664] and while following the principle of law reproduced hereinabove has observed as under: "In the case in hand, the plaint was rejected by the Additional District Judge under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not in original jurisdiction, therefore, in view of Section 96, CPC, and rule of law laid down in the judgment (supra), the appeal before the High Court was not competent."
Similarly, in the case reported as Syed Qadir Bakhsh Shah and others vs. Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan & others [2004 SCMB. 1638], the Apex Court of Pakistan observed that the first appeal under Section 96, CPC, is only competent if the Court has passed a decree in original jurisdiction and a decree passed in revisional jurisdiction is not appealable. It was observed in para 5 of the judgment as under: "5 We are of the view that the very idea that the order of learned District Judge was appealable under Section 96, CPC, is not in accordance with law. Only those orders and judgments are appealable under Section 96, CPC, where the lower Court happened to exercise original jurisdiction. In the instant case the District Judge had passed the order in his revisional jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction. The question of appeal under Section 96, CPC, is referable to the nature of jurisdiction exercised and not to the nature of order passed."
Likewise, in the case reported as Kaley Khan vs. Additional District Judge, Multan and 3 others [2006 MLD 210], a suit was filed. The defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application. The District Judge accepted the revision petition and rejected the plaint. The High Court observed that the appeal is not competent against the order of rejection of the plaint by the District Judge in revisional jurisdiction. It was observed as under: "6 Now the facts of the said case were that the application filed by a defendant in a suit, for rejection of plaint, was dismissed by the learned trial Court but was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The observations made by this Court that the order passed by the ADJ being for rejection of plaint and a decree in terms of Section 2(2), C.P.C. it was appealable under Section 96, C.P.C. It was in this context that the aforenoted observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In view of the said opinion recorded by the Hon'ble - Supreme Court of Pakistan, we have nothing further to say and respectfully following the same, we do hold that, in the circumstances of the present case, a Regular first Appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. would not be available against the orders passed by revisional Courts rejecting the plaints."
In the case in hand, the plaint was rejected by the Additional District Judge. Kotli under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not in original jurisdiction, therefore, in view of Section 96, CPC, and rule of law laid down in the precedents (supra), the appeal before the High Court was not competent. The learned High Court has committed no illegality while dismissing the appeal. Since, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal before the High Court was not competent, therefore, dilating upon the merits and demerits of the case is felt inexpedient.
The crux of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.