1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---We propose to dispose of the abovementioned two Civil Appeals by a common judgment as the points of law and facts arising in both the cases are identical.
2. ' The facts relevant for decision of these appeals are that respondents in the above appeals were allotted agricultural land in District Gujrat in satisfaction of their claim for agricultural land left behind in India. It appears that during trial of two civil suits instituted before the Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, by one Muhammad Din and Rehmat a question arose whether the suit land, which also included the land which is subject-matter of these appeals, were attached to any Evacuee Trust.
3. The Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, accordingly referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of section 5(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, XLVII of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' only), for decision on 26-7-1966.
4. Ch. Muhammad Shafi Zafar, Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Rawalpindi Division, in his capacity as the delegatee of Chief Settlement Commissioner, heard the above reference after issuing notices to the affected parties and the District Evacuee Trust Committee, Gujrat and held that the entire land was Evacuee Trust Property, being attached to Thakkarv.Dawaia, by order dated 11-7- 1967. The Collector, Gujrat on 15-3-1977 acting on a reference from his office directed that the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 11-7-1967 be implemented by rectifying the revenue record. The entries in the revenue record were, accordingly, changed from the names of the respondents in the above appeals in favour of Evacuee Trust Board. After repeal of Evacuee Laws in the year 1974, Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act XIII of 1975 was promulgated on 25-1- 1975. Section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975 which is relevant here, reads as follows:- "10.--(1) An immovable evacuee trust property,--
(a) if situated in a rural area and utilised bona fide under any Act prior to June, 1964, for allotment against the satisfaction of verified claims; and
(b) if situated in an urban area and utilised bona fide under any Act for transfer against the satisfaction of verified claims in respect of which Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued prior to June, 1968, shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the sale proceeds thereof shall be reimbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool.
(2) If a question arises whether a transaction referred to in subsection (1) is bona fide or not, it shall be decided by the Chairman whose decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.
(3) If it is decided that a transaction referred in subsection (1) is not bona fide, the Chairman may pass an order cancelling the allotment or transfer of such property ' Provided that no decision under subsection (2) or order under subsection (3) shall be taken or passed in respect of any property without giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
5. ' In the above-stated background two civil suits were instituted by the respondents in the above appeal on 13-5-1977 and 4-4-1977 respectively before the Civil Judge, Gujrat, seeking declaration that the order of Collector Gujrat, dated 15-3-1977 reversing the entries in favour of Evacuee Trust Board from the names of respondents in respect of the disputed land was illegal. In the aforesaid suits besides some private persons and Collector and Tehsildar Gujrat, Deputy Administrator of Evacuee Trust Properties were impleaded as defendants. The Deputy Administrator in his written statement filed before the Civil Judge, Gujrat, challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil. Court to proceed with the suits. Following issues were framed in the suits: "(1) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD
(3) Whether the description of the suit property is incorrect? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to bring the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD
(7) Weather the plaintiffs are the owners of property as detailed in para. No,1 of the plaint? OPP
(8) Whether the order of defendant No,3 is illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs for the reasons stated in para. No,5 of the plaint? OPP
(9) Relief."
6. ' The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties, however, decreed the suits. The judgments and decrees of the trial Court were challenged before the Ist Appellate Court by the Deputy Administrator of Evacuee Trust Properties but the appeal was curiously enough dismissed on the ground that Deputy Administrator, Trust Board was not an aggrieved party and that the party which was really aggrieved by the judgment and decree of trial Court was Evacuee Trust Board. On such reasoning, the appeal filed by Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Board was dismissed as incompetent. The Evacuee Board then filed a Civil Revision Application to challenge the decision of Ist Appellate Court which was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers as follows:-- "8. The question of jurisdiction stands embodied in issue No,1 and it can only be determined when there is a legally constituted revision before this Court. Therefore, first of all the question for determination is as to whether the civil revision in its present form was maintainable and this Court can adjudicate upon it? It is an admitted position that the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court had been filed by the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Gujrat, who was one of the defendants in the suit. In the civil revision neither this defendant nor any other defendant has been impleaded as a petitioner or respondent and only the plaintiffs have been arraigned as the respondents. The defendants were necessary party to the suit because the impugned order had been passed by the Collector (defendant No,3) on the application of defendants Nos.1 and 2 and it was later implemented by defendant No,4. In the absence of the defendants, there is no legally constituted revision before this Court and with the intervention of limitation by the lapse of many years, they cannot be now impleaded as, respondents. In other words, necessary parties before the trial Court and the appellate Court have been omitted in the revision without any explanation or justification and in their absence the matter in controversy cannot be adjudicated upon. There is, therefore, no legally constituted revision before this Court and the same is dismissed."
7. We are constrained to observe that the manner in which the Ist Appellate Court and the High Court dealt with the appeal and the Civil Revision Application, respectively, it resulted in the miscarriage of justice in the case. This Court has time and again disapproved the practice of non-suiting a party on technicalities.
8. ' In the present case besides, the fact that Deputy Administrator was a functionary of Evacuee Trust Board, it was also a defendant in the suit filed by respondents. We fail to understand, how the appeal filed by a defendant in the suit could be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal or that it was not an aggrieved party qua the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is further surprising that although Evacuee Trust Board was held by the Ist Appellate Court to be the party aggrieved from the judgment and decree of trial Court, but the judgment and decree of trial Court was affirmed, notwithstanding the fact that a necessary party to the suit was not impleaded as defendant. The Appellate Court having found that Evacuee Trust Board was an aggrieved party qua the judgment and decree of trial Court, should have exercised the power under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. And after setting aside the judgment and decree, the case should have been remanded to the trial Court with the direction to implead the necessary party to the suit and then proceed with the case in accordance with the law.
9. ' Similarly, the learned Judge in Chambers while hearing the revision application was exercising a supervisory jurisdiction which is primarily meant for correcting the jurisdictional error committed by the subordinate Courts. The High Court should not have declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction on mere technicalities. The Civil Revision Application having been filed by Evacuee Trust Board through its Deputy Administrator did not suffer from any such defect which could not be rectified. Similarly, the main contesting respondents being present before the Court, the Revision Application could not be dismissed on the supposed ground that if other pro forma defendants were allowed to be impleaded in the Revision now, the revision would be time-barred against them. This approach of the learned Judge in Chambers was merely conjectural. The learned Judge in Chambers having noticed that a serious question of jurisdiction of Civil Court had arisen in the case should not have dismissed the Revision relying on technicalities and presumptions.
10. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the plaintiff in both the suits had alleged that the land in the suit was once declared as the Evacuee Trust Property by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands). They however, relied that the transfer in their favour having taken place prior to 1964, it was protected under the law. It is, therefore, quite clear that a question had arisen in the proceedings before the Civil Court whether the transfer of the suit land in favour of respondents was protected 'under section 10(1) of the Act XIII of 1975. The decision on this issue rested within the exclusive jurisdiction of Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board whose decision was final as provided under section 10(2) ibid. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide this question was totally barred under section 14 of the Act XIII of 1975 which is as follows:-- "14. Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Federal Government or an officer appointed under this Act is empowered under this Act to determine, and no injunction, process or order shall be granted or issued by Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act."
11. ' Since the appeal and revision in this case were dismissed on technical ground and no decision was given on merits, we would have normally remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal of the case in accordance with the law after impleading Evacuee Trust Board as a defendant in the suit. However, we find that no useful purpose will now be served by remanding the case to the trial Court, as it has been brought to our notice during the hearing of these appeals that a petition under section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975 filed by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Gujranwala before Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board, seeking determination of the bona fide nature of transfer of land in favour of respondents is already pending which was adjourned sine die on 8- 4-1985 by the Chairman due to pendency of these proceedings. We, accordingly, allow both these appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and dismiss the suits filed by respondents as not maintainable. The parties may approach the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board for revival of the proceedings which will now be disposed of in accordance with the law. The respondents in these appeals are at liberty to seek interim relief from the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board, before whom the proceedings under section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975 are pending if they are so advised. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the cases.