' This revision application filed under section 115, Cr.P.C. Has given rise to an interesting argument about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide the suit out of which it has arisen, but when the statutory provisions with which it is concerned are examined the decision does not present great difficulty.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had applied for the grant of State land bearing S.No,417 and others situated in Deh Udhi, Taluka Thul, which was, however, granted to one Muhammad Bachal by the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur, the applicant No,4 in open kutchery on 26-2-1974. The respondent went in appeal before Member, Board of Revenue (Land Utilization) Hyderabad, the applicant No,2, against this order. Another party, namely, Gul Muhammad alias Sultan, All Hassan and Muhammad Ismail also filed an appeal on 1-4-1974 before applicant No,2 in respect of land bearing U.A. Nos. 410 and 417. After the creation of the posts of Additional Commissioner, in the Province of Sindh, both these appeals were transferred to Additional Commissioner, Sukkur Division, Sukkur, the applicant No,3. On 13-3-1975, the applicant No,3 decided the appeal in favour of respondent and in consequence thereof the applicant No,4 made necessary correction in the record and received MALKANO. The land was then developed by the respondent who all along remained in possession of the said land. On 18-10-1978 the applicant No,3 re-opened the case on an appeal filed by Gul Muhammad and others and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent cancelled his grant, and granted the same to Gul Muhammad. The respondent challenged this order before applicant No,2, who while holding the order dated 18-10-1978, without jurisdiction directed the disposal of S. No, 417 afresh in open kutchery. Being aggrieved with this order dated 27-9-1981, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandhkot. The apphcants resisted this suit on various grounds.
According to their case the suit land was still a Government land and could be resumed as no right of ownership had passed on to the respondent. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable according to law?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
(3) Whether the suit is barred under sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act?
(4) Whether the order dated 13-3-1975 passed by the defendant No,3 acquired finalty?
(6) Whether the order dated 21-9-1981 passed by the defendant No,2 is illegal, invalid, (not) in conformity, with the provisions of law?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief?
(7) What should the decree be?
' Issues Nos.1 to 3, being the legal issues were not pressed on behalf of applicants. The rest of the issues were decided against the applicants and accordingly the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 24-11-1983. The applicants filed an appeal before District Judge, Jacobabad which was dismissed summarily on 18-9-1985, being barred by time by about two years. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have filed this revision application under section 115, C.P.C.
3. I have heard Mr.Zawar Hussain Jaffari, learned counsel for applicants and Mr.Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for respondent.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the suit, out of which this revision application has arisen, was not maintainable in law. This issue was specifically raised and was abandoned before the trial Court. Since the question of jurisdiction is basically a legal issue, I have permitted the same to be agitated before me.
5. Section 9, C.P.C. Deals with the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. As a general principle every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and all laws which trench on the usual jurisdiction of Civil Courts must be very strictly construed. The following cases speak of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in certain exigencies:--
(i) Masood Ali v. Ali Haibat Khan and 2 others PLD 1958 Lahore 340 (ii) Abdul Ghafar and others v.
Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1963 Kar. 215 (iii) Muhammad Shafi v. Punjab Province through Collector, Vehari and another 1982 CLC 55 (iv) Allah Bakhsh v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab (Lahore) and another 1981 SCMR 1185 (v) Abdul Jabbar v. Muhammad Latif and others 1986 CLC 603 (vi) Bashir Ahmad and others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others 1987 SCMR 1620
(vii) Muhammad Azam, etc. v. Bashir-ud-din, etc. 1988 MLD 1341 and (viii) Muhammad Nazir v.
Punjab Province, etc. 1987 MLD 2885.
6. The ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred and I B the following cases support this proposition of law:--
(i) Jiwana v. Mst.Sahbi PLD 1954 Lahore 253 (ii) Khadim Hussain and 3 others v. Ata Muhammad and 7 others PLD 1967 Lah. 915; (iii) Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan, through the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur and another PLD 1970 SC 180; (iv) Barkat Ali, Mianwali v.
Administrator, Thal Development, Bhakkar PLD 1978 Lah. 867; (v) Karim Dad v. Arif All and Punjab Province PLD 1978 Lah. 679; (vi) Amtul Wahab Zia v.Begum Bibi etc. PLD 1978 Lah. 150; (vii)
Muhammad Sala and another v. Maher Shah and 3 others 1980 CLC 662 (viii) and Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others 1985 CLC 2387.
7. On a careful and anxious study of the cases I have referred to above, the following points emerge:-
(a) The Civil Courts cannot sit over the discretion of the Government.
(b) The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred in matters falling within the exclusive competence of the Revenue Officer.
(c) The Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine the cases where statutory provisions have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(d) The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts applies only where the authorities concerned act within the four corners of their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred where the acts of authorities concerned are ultra vires or without jurisdiction or void or in excess of jurisdiction.
(e) The ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred and the Courts should jealously guard their jurisdiction to interfere in the exigencies mentioned above.
8. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it appears to me that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for declaration and injunction. Quite admittedly the applicant No,3 had decided the appeal filed by the respondent on 13-3-1975 and necessary corrections in the record were made on the basis of this decision. The respondent was then asked to pay MALKANO which he paid regularly. There is also no dispute that the respondent was condemned unheard when the applicant No,3 passed another order on 18-10-1978, thereby cancelling his grant. This fact was even noticed by applicant No,2 in his order dated 21-9-1981, which is evident from the following extract:-- "The impugned order of Additional Commissioner, Sukkur, was without jurisdiction as the matter was already decided by his predecessor in 1975."
' The applicant No,2, however, cancelled the grant of respondent mainly on the ground that compromise was not permissible in law. It may be noted that the order dated 13-3-1975 by which the suit land was granted to respondent by applicant No,3 was not questioned by anybody and it had attained finality. In these circumstances the order of applicant No,2 dated 21-9-1981 was in excess of jurisdiction and was rightly held so by the Civil Court.
9. No exception can also be taken to the order of learned District Judge, Jacobabad dated 18-9- 1985 by which the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed summarily, being hopelessly barred by time. The powers under section 115, C.P.C. Are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice.
10. No case for interference is made out and the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision .