' SALEEM AKHTAR, J. ---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court passed in civil revision application filed by the respondents against the order of the District Judge.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has held that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit filed by respondents Nos.1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs/respondents).
2. The dispute relates to Shop No. 358-C situated in Main Bazar, Haripur. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the orders dated 17-7-1986 and 19-2-1987 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Commissioner, Hazara Division, granting P.T.D. In favour of the petitioners as illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and arbitrary and further that the documents, namely, agreement of association dated 26-4-1960 and registered deed No. 357 dated 23-9-1968 are forged, fabricated, fraudulent, illegal and of no legal effect.
Barkatullah Khan had executed special power of attorney dated 4-10-1965 in the name of Sultan Hassan Khan, petitioner No.1, which according to him (Barkatullah Khan) was cancelled by him under a registered deed dated 12-12-1973 and notice was duly served on him. The disputed shop was allotted to Barkatullah Khan which was subject-matter of Suit No. 337/1 filed by him against the Settlement Authorities which was decreed by judgment dated 16-6-1971 granting a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for putting it to auction. In compliance with the said judgment the Settlement Commissioner directed Barkatullah Khan to deposit Rs.7,339, failing which shop was to be resumed and disposed of accordingly.
According to the plaint filed by Barkatullah Khan, he had deposited Rs. 241 on 6-12-1973 and Rs.
7,098 on 17-4-1974. He, therefore, claimed to have completed all the formalities for issuance of P.T.D.
In his name. It seems that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Nawab Hussain Ahmad Khan instituted Suit No.4/1 on 2-1-1975 against Barkatullah Khan and others claiming the right of ownership and possession of the disputed shop and prayed that direction be issued to Settlement Authorities to issue P.T,D. In his name. This suit was dismissed against which the petitioners filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Abbottabad. By judgment dated 28-1-1985 the learned Additional District Judge held that after the promulgation of Ordinance XV of 1974 (Act XIV of 1975) the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the plaint be returned for presentation in the proper forum. During the pendency of this case as interim injunction had been passed, P.T.D. Could not be issued to Barkatullah Khan by the concerned officials. However, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 19-7-1986 directed that P.T.D. Be issued in favour of Hussain Ahmad Khan on the basis of registered sale-deed No. 357 dated 23-9-1968 executed by the plaintiffs/respondents and the possession of the shop. Departmental challenge did not succeed for want of jurisdiction. He, therefore filed the suit challenging the issuance of P.T.D. In favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. This suit was dismissed. In appeal by judgment dated 11-3-1989 of the learned District Judge affirmed the finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a revision petition against this order which was allowed by the impugned judgment holding that the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the sale agreement, rent deed and the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed shop and further that as the case should have been treated as a pending case before the authorities the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under law. None of the authorities seem to have treated the issuance of P.T.D. In respect of shop as a pending case. The main allegation in the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents is that the petitioners' predecessor-ininterest had obtained P.T.D. In his favour on the basis of forged documents and by practising fraud. The question therefore to be considered would be whether forgery and fraud have been committed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in obtaining P.T.D. In his favour. Such question cannot be decided by the departmental authorities. Where question of fraud, forgery or misrepresentation is involved, unless specifically barred under law, the jurisdiction remains with the Civil Court to decide such issue.
Reference to the rent deed and the alleged deed of association cannot improve the case of the petitioners as the same have been alleged to be fraudulent and forged. In view of these facts and the legal position emerging from them, in our view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. We therefore refuse to grant leave.