1. This is a petition under section 115, Civil P.C. for revision by Haji Muhammad and Meraj Din sons of Hassan Din against a decision of learned Additional District Judge, Kasur passed in appeal on 5-12- 1993 affirming that of learned trial Court dated 19-10-1992 by which a plaint in suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was summarily rejected under Order VII, rule 11, civil P.C.
2. The facts are as follows:--235 Kanals, 10 Marlas of land at Bhalair Chak No. 46 of Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur was in the ownership of Province of Punjab. On 6-8-1966, it was allotted to Muhammad Sharif defendant No. 2 in the suit under Well Sinking Scheme. Upon infringement of terms of allotment by him it was resumed on 26-9-1967 by the Collector of the District. On appeal to Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore resumption was maintained on 14-6-1968. A revision taken to the Board of Revenue was dismissed by it on 28-9-1968. Having exhausted the remedies in revenue hierarchy, Muhammad Sharif invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 64 of 1969. However, it was withdrawn on 5-5-1991 without getting a decision on merits by the High Court. Thereupon, Muhammad Sharif took recourse to the Civil Court and instituted a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of his grievance concerning resumption of the allotment of State land from him. The date of institution of the civil suit was not available on the present record. On 26-2-1992, a Civil Judge of Kasur rejected the plaint for failing to disclose a triable cause of action. On appeal by Muhammad Sharif, the decision of the trial Court was maintained by learned District Judge, Kasur on 16-4-1992. Thereupon, a petition in revision was filed in this Court. It too was dismissed. It is not known whether Muhammad Sharif agitated the order further in Supreme Court. I regretfully observe that though the orders passed on the civil suit filed by Muhammad Sharif were referred to in the order of learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners conveniently withheld them from this Court for avoidance of reference to them for knowing of their merits. So much so, the petitioners failed to disclose even the number of Civil Revision filed in and decided by this Court. Present was a second round of litigation launched by the petitioners for preserving his possession on a large piece of State land and, if I may say so, without a semblance of any title to it. Their case was that they occupied the State land as sub- tenants of Muhammad Sharif and in that capacity were entitled to maintain it. The Government resisted the petitioners' suit. It was said that the allotment from the name of Muhammad Sharif was since long rescinded and the order made in this behalf were upheld so far. Since the original allottee was out of field, his alleged sub-tenants could not hold on the State land. Objection prevailed with the trial Court which rejected the plaint summarily. As said above, learned Additional District Judge upon an elaborate reference to the merits of the case and the previous judgments rendered in litigation between Muhammad Sharif and the Government maintained an, order for rejection of the plaint. The ground urged at the hearing was that the plaint could not have been rejected summarily without a formal trial of its averments. It was urged that while deciding the application for interim injunction, the stage was not ripe for recourse to the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. I am unable to agree. Petitioners failed to convince on their title to hold the State land. In the' revenue hierarchy, the Board of Revenue upheld the resumption of allotment from Muhammad Sharif. A writ petition filed in the High Court was withdrawn without a decision on merits. Thereafter, suit for perpetual injunction was filed in the Civil Court. The plaint in it was rejected and that order was upheld right up to the High Court. The object to withhold information about the decision in revision by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation was obvious.
3. Repeated attempts were being made to cling to the State land without a recognizable right for it.
4. Petitioners were mere squatters and as such had no equity in their favour. Their possession, therefore, could not be protected. Provisions of Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. were not exhaustive of all the situations where the plaint could be summarily rejected. The Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction could nip the frivolous litigation in the bud. In fact, it was its duty to thoroughly examine the plaint at the very inception so that its valuable time and those of the parties was not exhausted on frivolities. A judgment of this Court in Jewan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Home Affairs and 2 others 1992 M LD 225 shall be helpful on this score. In my opinion, learned Courts below rightly buried the meritless litigation at its inception and there could be no serious exception to the course adopted by them.
5. Result, therefore--- is that the civil revision is dismissed in limine.