' This revision petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by Allah Bakhsh deceased predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on 13-12-1968 in the Civil Court, Bhakkar. The plaintiff claimed that the disputed land measuring 78 Kanals 13 Marlas bearing Rectangle No,147 2/2, 3, 4/1, 148/2 to 8, 9/1 entered to Khatuni Killa Bandi, Chak No,30-A/TDA, Tehsil and District Bhakkar was lawfully sold to him after its resumption from the name of one Muhammad Aslam and that the defendants petitioners had no right to interfere in his possession.
2. The petitioner resisted the suit and on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether Muhammad Aslam Khan deceased was the owner of the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint? O.P.P.
(2) Whether the suit land was transferred to Chak No,30-A/TDA and land mentioned in paragraph No,1 of the plaint was replaced by the land mentioned in paragraph No,2 of the plaint at the time of Killabandi? O.P.P.
(3) Whether Muhammad Aslam Khan's some other land was also resumed from Chak No,30-A, under the Land Reforms Regulation? If so, its effect? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession in the capacity of tenants over the land resumed from Muhammad Aslam Khan? If so, its effect? O.P.P.
(5) Whether the Land Commission transferred the suit land to the plaintiffs under the Land Reforms Regulation? O.P.P.
(6) Whether the order of DLC dated 17-11-1967 by which the order of DLC dated 15-6-1959 was set aside was against law, without jurisdiction and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs on the grounds mentioned in paragraph No,9 of the plaint? O.P.P.
(7) Whether the plaintiffs were not served with any notice about the proceedings done which are mentioned in paragraph No,9 of the plaint, if so, its effect? O.P.P.
(8) Whether the plaintiffs have made any improvements. If so, are they entitled to compensation and to what extent? O.P.P.
(9) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to institute this suit due to his conduct and words? O.P.P.
(10) Whether Mutations Nos.172, 173 and 174, dated 31-1-1968 are rightly sanctioned? O.P.D.
(11) Relief.
' The trial Court recorded evidence of the deceased/plaintiff. The petitioner failed to produce his evidence despite grant of adjournment for the said purpose whereupon his evidence was ordered to be closed on 21-11-1973. The trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 6- 5-1974. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Mianwali vide the judgment and decree dated 2-11-1976.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of the provisions of Para. 27 of the Land Reforms Regulation.
1964. In this connection he places reliance on the following judgments:--
(1) Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum 1968 SCM R 667 and
(2) Allah Bakhsh and another v. Muhammad Riaz PLD 1974 Lah.
268.
' He further submits that the Chief Land Commissioner was the necessary party as he had passed the final order, dated 13-11-1968 and that in his absence no effective decree could have been passed. He further submits that the disputed land was not owned by Muhammad Aslam from whom it was resumed and subsequently sold to Allah Bakhsh, deceased plaintiff. He adds that the material on the record fully established that the disputed land was owned by the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner's evidence was illegally closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the C.P.C.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the resumption order was passed by the DLC on 25-6-1959 while the application for review was belatedly filed by Ghulam Hassan alias Hassan on 20-8-1962. Referring to Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, he submits that such an application could have been filed within 10 days from the date of the order. Hence, the present application merited dismissal on the ground of limitation. He submits that no notice was issued to Allah Bakhsh deceased by the Deputy Land Commissioner as required under Rule 11-B of the Rules. He places reliance on Nawab Haji Khair Muhammad Khan v.
The State PLD 1966 SC 604. He further submits that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction in the matter as the Land Commission Authorities had not acted in accordance with the law. In this connection he places reliance on the cases of Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCM R 356 and Anwar Hussain v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Larkana and 4 others 1983 CLC
851. He submits that hearing in the appeal was not sufficient to cure the defect of initial lack of notice. In this connection he refers to Akhtar Hussain etc. v. Mangoo Khan etc. 1981 CLC 971. On merits he submits that documentary evidence proved that Muhammad Aslam was owner of the disputed land and that after resumption the land was lawfully sold to the respondents.
5. The record shows that the disputed land was resumed from the name of Muhammad Aslam Khan vide the order dated 25-6-1959 passed by the DLC. At that time Allah Bakhsh deceased/plaintiff was a sitting tenant and the land was adjusted in his name. He paid the entire price of the land on 22-12-1960 and acquired proprietorship vide Mutation No,34 sanctioned in the name of the deceased/plaintiff in the year 1961. Thereafter the present petitioner filed an application on 18-8-1962 for review of the earlier order, dated 25-6-1959 passed by the DLC. The application for review could have been filed within the period of 10 days as provided under Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules. However, without adverting to the question of limitation or issuing notice to Allah Bakhsh deceased/plaintiff, the DLC passed the following order:-- "I hereby review the order, dated 25-6-1959 passed by my predecessor resuming area of 78 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Chak No,30-A/TDA under Rule 11 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, as authorised by the Land Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide his endorsement No,16172/LR, dated 15-8-1967."
' It is evident that the above order is meaningless because no clear order was passed to recall or set aside the earlier order dated 25-6-1959. Moreover, the question of limitation was not at all adverted to by the DLC. The order was passed without hearing Allah Bakhsh deceased/plaintiff.
Therefore, on the above three scores the said order was nullity in the eye of law and has to be simply ignored. The appellate order dated 24-5-1968 passed by the DLC and the revisional order dated 13-11-1968 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner also fall to the ground because the basic order is a nullity in the eye of law.
6. The Civil Court enjoys plenary jurisdiction under section 9 of the C.P.C. Therefore, it was competent to entertain and decide the suit for permanent injunction filed by Allah Bakhsh deceased/plaintiff. As discussed above, the order, dated 17-11-1967 whereby the earlier order, dated 25-6-1959 was reviewed, was no order in the eye of law. It is non-speaking and arbitrary order and does not even indicate that the earlier order dated 25-6-1959 was being recalled or set aside.
Moreover, it was passed without adverting to the question of limitation or issuing notice to Allah Bakhsh deceased. Therefore, the Civil Court was fully competent to examine its validity or effect qua the rights of the parties. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court proceed on their distinguishable facts and need no elaborate discussion. In Hamid Hussain's case relied upon by the respondents' learned counsel it was held that jurisdiction of civil court even if barred and conferred upon Special Tribunals, Civil Courts being Courts of ulitmate jurisdiction had jurisdiction to examine acts of such forum to see if these were in accordance with the law or illegal or even mala fide. Similar view was expressed in the case of Anwar Hussain (relied upon by the respondents' learned counsel) in which it was held:- "Jurisdiction of Civil Court, even if ousted, yet it can intervene and exercise jurisdiction to examine facts and orders of Special Tribunal whether same are according to law or whether Tribunal acted illegally or in mala fide manner or complied with provisions of law for which Tribunal itself was created."
7. The argument that the Land Commission Authority was necessary party in the suit and no effective decree could have been passed in their absence does not carry weight. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the Thal Development Authority, Bhakkar. The disputed land was acquired by the Thal Development Authority vide its Notification No,3938-C, dated 1-9-1951. After acquisition the Thal Development Authorities adjusted the land in the name of Allah Bakhsh plaintiff in Chak No,30-A/TDA, District Mianwali. The claim of Muhammad Aslam Khan was for adjustment of the land in his name. Allah Bakhsh, deceased the respondent/plaintiff paid its entire price and acquired proprietary rights.
Therefore, he had rightly filed the suit against the petitioner and the Thal Development Authorities for a permanent injunction. Moreover, the objection regarding non-impleadment of the Land Commission Authorities was never raised before the Courts below and in the circumstances of the case cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the revisional stage.
8. The next argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that the petitioner's evidence was illegally closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Is equally devoid of force. The petitioner was required to produce evidence on 4-7-1973 but on the said date the Presiding Officer was on leave. The case was fixed for 29-9-1973 for the petitioner's evidence. His evidence was not available and the case was adjourned for 21-11-1973. This adjournment was obviously occasioned due to non-production of evidence by the petitioner and appears to have been granted on specific request of the petitioner subject to payment of Rs,10 as costs. Had the request for adjournment not been made on behalf of the petitioner; the Court would have dosed the petitioner's evidence on 29-9-1973. On the adjourned date again the petitioner failed to produce his evidence. Hence, the Court was fully justified to close the petitioner's evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. There is nothing to show that Hassu alias Ghulam Hassan, defendant was himself present in the Court and desired to make a statement. Under these circumstances the trial Court did not commit any illegality in passing the order dated 21-11-1973.
9. For the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.