This revision arises from the order dated 23-11-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby temporary injunction granted to Sh. Ijaz-ul-Haque, respondent-plaintiff by the trial Court was affirmed.
2. It was a suit for declaration that the defendants, or for that matter their predecessor Muhammad Sadiq had no title in the assets of the firm styled as Messrs Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Afzal and that it exclusively belonged to the respondent-plaintiffs father Muhammad Afzal, deceased. He made an application for temporary injunction complaining that the defendants were threatening to interfere with his possession over the property in question as also were trying to get it mutated in their favour. He prayed to restrain them from so doing. The application was opposed, but the trial Court allowed it. The petitioner's appeal also failed and he filed the present revision petition.
3. The Courts below allowed the plaintiff three pronged relief by restraining the petitioner and his co-defendants from interfering with (i) his rights of ownership, possession and business; (ii) property of the firm; and (iii) getting any mutation attested in their favour in regard to the property.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for the petitioner stated at the bar that he would have no objection to the continuance of a part of the relief namely, staying interference with the respondents' ownership, possession, business and the property of the firm, but he had a serious grievance against staying the impending mutation proceedings. He referred to Muhammad Siddique and others v. Haji Talib Hussain and others 1985 SCMR 1918 to point out that proceedings before a Revenue Officer who was not subordinate to a Civil Court, could not be stopped. In reply, Mian Nisar Ahmad for the respondents contended that the revision would not be competent merely because the finding of fact or law reached by the lower Court was wrong. He sought support for this plea from Muhammad Bux v. Muhammad A.I 1984 SCMR504.
4. It may not be easily disputed that the proceedings under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act by a Revenue Officer in the context of attesting a mutation lay in his exclusive jurisdiction. The respondents did not even remotely suggest that he was an officer subordinate to the Civil Court.
The rule pronounced in the precedent case unambiguously laid down that a Civil Court may not stay proceedings before an authority not subordinate to it. The contention that the order even if wrong was not revisable, may be helpful only if it could be demonstrated that it was passed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court. It will certainly be not availing when the Civil Court was, as in this case totally divested of the jurisdiction. Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to call in question proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer in the exercise -of his exclusive jurisdiction and for this simple reason it was not competent to prevent him from attesting the mutation.
5. It was further urged that the stay was not directed against the Revenue Officer, and that it could with impunity restrain the opposite party. It is true; that apparently the order directed the petitioner not to get any mutation attested in his favour, but then in effect it put a restraint on the exercise of authority vested I by law in the Revenue Officer, and was prima facie violative of section 172 ibid.Counsel lastly argued that since a question of title was involved, the Revenue Officer did not have jurisdiction to decide upon it. According to him, only the Civil Court could decide it finally in its plenary jurisdiction. It goes without saying that any order touching upon the title passed by the Revenue Officer in attesting mutation would be subject to decision by the Civil Court. There may be no misapprehension in the respondents' mind that any decision by the Revenue Officer will preclude him from establishing his title before the Civil Court.
6. The revision petition is partially accepted to modify the impugned judgment to the extent that the temporary injunction issued by the lower Court shall not restrain the proceedings before the Revenue Officer about the attestation of mutation. Otherwise it is upheld.
H.B.T./M-1557/L