' This is a revision petition against the order dated 16-4-1983 of learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, affirming the order dated 17-7-1980 of learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore, rejecting the plaint of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly and illegally dispossessing them. An application for the grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioners to which written reply was filed by the respondents. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 5th March, 1980 granted the interim relief and on 17th July, 1980 rejected the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action.
It was krther held that the stand of the petitioners was whimsical and that they did not possess any title in the property.
3. The petitioners filed an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 16-4-1983 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The learned appellate Court considered the plea of the petitioners as to the payment of rent of the property in question to the Settlement Department and concluded that on this ground the transfer order passed in favour of the respondents by the Settlement Authority cannot be rendered illegal and void, that after the transfer of the property in favour of respondent No,2 even if the appellants are in lawful possession of the property they have become at the most tenants, and that if any application for the transfer of the property submitted on behalf of the petitioners is undisposed of by the Settlement Authorities, the transfer of the suit property by the Settlement Authorities in favour of respondents cannot be declared illegal. It was further held that the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue in possession for ever through the grant of permanent injunction in their favour. It was on these grounds that the order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action was held to be unexceptionable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that for rejecting plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. only the averments made in the plaint have to be considered. This view is manifestly incorrect. The entire law regarding the rejection of plaint has been considered by this Court in a judgment Jewan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Home A Affairs and 2 others 1992 M LD 225 and relying upon Nazeer Ahmad and others v. Ghulam Mehdi and others 1988 SCM R 824 it was held that the Court can take into consideration material other than the contents of plaint while considering question of rejection of plaint.
5. The learned trial Judge has considered averments in the plaint and has concluded that the petitioners do not possess any title in the property and they have joined in the suit to keep their possession on the property to which not a single of them has got the title. This finding has been arrived at after consideration of few receipts filed with the plaint, by only four or five petitioners,
6. The order passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court seems to be correct and in accordance with law. All the 64 petitioners have not been able to show nor they have stated in the plaint that they were in possession of allotment order in their favour or their possession was duly recognised by the Rehabilitation or Settlement Authorities. It is not even alleged in the plaint that all the petitioners were in possession of any joint allotment order in default of which they could not have brought their grievance before the Civil Court jointly and the learned trial Judge rightly held that the petitioners have joined to keep their possession without any title.
7. The plea of the petitioners that they should not be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law can only succeed if they are able to show their title in the property or any right by which their possession can be recognised in law. This requirement is obviously lacking in the present case. For instance, a trespasser cannot file a suit before the Civil Court to protect his illegal and unauthorised occupation. In these circumstances both the lower Courts have rightly held against the present petitioners,
8. I find that in this case the written reply to the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. was filed by the respondents raising number of preliminary objections including one that the suit was not maintainable. It was specifically stated in para. 3 of this reply that the price of the property has already been paid and PTD issued in favour of respondents. It was further stated that respondents were the employees of the Police Department and they accommodated some of their relatives in the property in question which was changing possession from time to time and it is for this reason they opposed the application for interim injunction.
9. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab states that the property having been transferred to the respondents, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to question such a transfer. Further he relies upon the finding of the lower Courts that no relief can be granted to the petitioners regarding their alleged illegal dispossession.
10. The plea of the Law Officer that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the facts and circumstances of the case is correct as the suit having been barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and on this ground the suit is not maintainable. The law is clearly laid down in (1) Sher Bahadar Khan v. Qazi Islamuddin and another PLD 1984 SC 213, (2) Walayat and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1985 SC 278, (3)
Nazeer Ahmad and others v. Ghulam Mehdi and others 1988 SCM R 824, (4) Faizuddin Ahmad v.
Muhammad Yousaf and another 1988 SCM R 1289.
' In case of Sher Bahadar Khan (1) it was held that "the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction however in the process to interpret or construe the Permanent Transfer Deed in a manner to erode, modify or destroy any part of the proceedings, order or decision of the competent Settlement Authority which consistently with the Permanent Transfer Deed formed the very basis of the Permanent Transfer Deed. That would be outside their jurisdiction under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act". (P.217)
' In case of Walayat (2) it was held that as regards the locus standi of "the defendants appellants who claimed no independent title or interest except that of trespassers or of having remained in possession of the land since long to go behind the transfer order the decisions of this Court in Jamal Din and others v. Mst. Pari Jan and 4 others 1984 SCM R 403 and The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore PLD 1975 SC 331 hold the field. It was held that persons who are neither allottees nor entitled to the transfer of the land cannot dispute in view of section 25 of the Act the transfer made in favour of some one else." (P.281)
' In case of Nazir Ahmad (3) it was held that "the claim of the appellants in the suit substantially was to call in question the subsequent order of the Custodian which did relate to the disputed property but was protected from challenge in Civil Court under the existing law by virtue of section 41 of the Act of 1975 and as stated above the repeal of the said Act did not have the effect of removing the bar contained in the repealed provision which was preserved by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, so far as the orders passed during the operation of the repealed law. The argument that with the repeal of the Act of 1975, the bar contained in section 41 on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also wiped off is untenable".
11. This was a case where the .order passed by the Custodian was challenged in the Civil Court and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and the leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. The appeal was finally dismissed.
' In another case of Faizuddin Ahmad (4) the leave was granted for examination of the question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the subject-matter of the suit in question, which related to the transfer of the property under Lands Settlement Law. It was held that "Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of matters which the Central Government or any Officer appointed under the Act was empowered by or under the Act to determine. As the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner fell well within his competence the provisions of section 25 were attracted in this case; and as such the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to interfere with it". (P.1293)
12. Both the lower Courts have examined the averments in the plaint and have come to the conclusion that there being no cause of action in favour of the petitioners the plaint was rejected. I do not find any illegality in the orders of the Courts below. The petitioners have not been able to bring their case within the ambit of any one of the clauses stated in section 115 of the C.P.C. which warrant interference in this case.
' For the reasons stated above this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.