' This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner to call in question the judgment and decree, dated 13-5-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 8-1-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, D.G. Khan was set aside.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that an agricultural land measuring 55 Kanals and 2 Marlas situated in Khata No,453/345 Mauza Aali Wala, Tehsil and District D.G. Khan was owned by Mst. Sharifan. The said Mst. Sharifan sold the suit land to one Elahi Bakhsh vide registered sale-deed, dated 9-4-1975, and present petitioner being a collateral of the vendor filed a suit for possession on the basis of his superior right of pre-emption. The suit was contested by the vendee Elahi Bakhsh and resultantly it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner (herein) vide judgment and decree, dated 16-12-1976. This decree was duly executed and Mutation No,502 under the decree was sanctioned on 30-9-1978. The respondent Muhammad Hussain being tenant of the suit land had also filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in the Court Of Collector, which was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 25-6-1980. Against the said decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 1-9-1980. The petitioner then instituted a suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Collector in favour of the respondent alleging therein, that he is owner in possession of the disputed property and the entries of Revenue Record showing the respondent as tenant are illegal, void and inoperative and that the decree passed by the Collector is also illegal and void being based on forged documents prepared by the respondent. His plaint was rejected by the Civil Court for want of cause of action. The petitioner challenged that decree before the learned Appellate Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner had also filed the present suit to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 25-6-1980 passed by the Collector and the civil Court vide judgment and decree, dated 8-1-1991, decreed the suit.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent Muhammad Hussain preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan vide judgment and decree, dated 13-4-1992 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 8-1-1991 passed by the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Court has not passed the judgment on merits and only non-suited the petitioner with the observation that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C., and that the Collector had passed the decree as a Civil Court, which could not be challenged through this suit. The petitioner was impleaded as party in that suit before the Collector and after hearing the parties the Collector had decreed the suit. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed and the decree of the Collector was emerged in the decree of Additional Commissioner and that decree was not challenged by the petitioner in the present suit and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the judgments of Collector or Additional Commissioner, who had passed the decree as a Civil Court. He further contended that Civil Court was not competent to interfere with the order passed by the Revenue Authorities and could not declare the same as without lawful authority. He relies on a case Noor-ul-Amin and another v. Muhammad Hashim and 27 others 1992 SCM R 1744 wherein it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by treating the plaint as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.".
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., could be filed in the Court which passed the decree and that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the decree passed by the Collector under paragraph 25 of M.L.R. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation). Relies on case of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Malik Allah Ditta and others 1993 SCM R 1469.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
7. It is admitted that the respondent Muhammad Hussain had instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of being tenant of the suit land against the vendee Elahi Bakhsh but later on the petitioner was impleaded as party in the suit. The suit was decreed by the Collector vide judgment and decree, dated 25-6-1980 and the petitioner then filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 1-9-1980. This order of the Additional Commissioner was not challenged before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner and hence, the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, dated 1-9-1980 had attained the finality. The petitioner was a party in the suit before the Collector and after hearing him the decree was passed. The application under section 12(2), C.P.C., could be filed by a party to challenge the decree of the Court, if the decree is passed on the basis of fraud misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction. As the petitioner was a party in the suit and he had challenged the decree of the Collector before Additional Commissioner, therefore, his application or suit was not maintainable on these grounds, even if the suit is treated as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Thus, I am constrained to hold that this application could be filed in the Court which has passed the decree and this application was maintainable before the Collector only and instead of that, present suit had been instituted. At that time the Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under paragraph 25 of M.L.R. 115 of 1972, because the judgment of Qazilbash case wherein the land reforms were declared against the Injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah had not taken affect. So, the judgment referred to by the petitioner is not helpful to him.
8. The Collector had passed the decree, within whose jurisdiction the pre-empted land was situated and the decision of the Revenue Authorities on any matter in such proceedings, which the Revenue Authorities were competent to decide under M.L.R. 115 could not be brought under challenge before a Civil Court in a civil suit in view of the provisions of para.26 of M.L.R.
115.
9. Paragraph 26 of M.L.R. 115 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which is re-produced as under:-- - "Para.26. Bar of Jurisdiction.---(1) No provision of this Regulation or of any rules or orders made thereunder shall be called in question in any Court, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, or before any authority other than an authority appointed under this Regulation, and no such Court or authority shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Commission is empowered to determine.
(2) No such Court or authority as aforesaid, shall be competent to grant any injunction or other order in relation to any proceeding before the Commission or before any officer exercising any power or discharging any function under this Regulation or the Rules or orders made thereunder, or in relation to anything done or intended to be done by or at the instance of the Commission or such officer.:
10. The combined effect of the above provisions is that the jurisdiction to try a suit for pre-emption based on the right of tenancy vests exclusively with the Collector within whose jurisdiction the pre- empted land is situated. The decision of a Revenue Authority on any matter in such proceedings, which the Revenue Authorities are competent to decide under the provisions of M.L.R. 115, could not be brought under challenge before a Civil Court in a civil suit in view of the provision of paragraph 26 of M.L.R.
115. In this context reliance can be placed on Muhammad Hussain and others v. Malik Allah Ditta and others 1993 SCM R 1469.
11. The dictum laid down in the case (supra) is fully applicable on all fours of the present suit. The judgment and decree passed by the Collector in favour of the respondent could not be set aside by the Civil Court. The learned Additional District Judge committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment which is unexceptionable.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this revision petition, which is dismissed.