' The present civil revision is filed from the judgment and decree, dated *3-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhang in Civil Appeal No,184 of 1989 whereby the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhang.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Property No,654 situated in Block No,6, Jhang City was subjected to survey by the Excise and Taxation Department and the annual letting value of the property was assessed at Rs,3,840 and in pursuance thereof Survey Register for the year 1983-84 was prepared. The respondent challenged the assessment by filing an appeal before the Director, Excise and Taxation, Faisalabad which was dismissed on 29-4-1984. A revision petition was filed before the Additional Director General Excise and Taxation, Punjab Lahore which was partly accepted and the annual letting value of the property was reduced to Rs,2,640. The respondent thereafter filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the annual letting value of the property in question was not properly assessed and it was without jurisdiction and mala fide and the correct valuation was Rs,840 and that the entries in the Survey Register for the year 1983-84 be declared of no legal effect and as a consequential relief mandatory injunction for correcting the entries in the Survey Register was prayed for. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners. The trial Court vide its order, dated 8-3-1987 rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code which order was put to challenge through an appeal and the- Additional District Judge, Jhang vide his order, dated 29-7-1987 accepted the appeal and remand the case with a direction that the trial Court should dispose of the case after framing preliminary issues. On remand preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court was framed on 31-10-1987. The parties produced their evidence on that issue. On 8-10-1989, in issue on merits as Issue No, 2 was also framed on joint request of the parties. The parties led their evidence and the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26-10-1989 held that annual letting value of the property in question was Rs,1,690. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners and the Additional District Judge, Jhang affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
3. The annual letting, value of the property is determined by the Excise and Taxation Department under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The rules principles for determining of the said value have been laid down in section 5 read with West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules. During the survey in the year 1983-84 the annual letting value of the Property bearing No,654, Block No,6, Jhang City was fixed at Rs,3,480. The property comprises of four shops and a shed. The Additional Director General Excise and Taxation reduced the annual letting value from Rs,3,480 to Rs,2,640 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. As a general principle it is correct that the Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and enjoys the jurisdiction to examine the acts of the Executive and quasi-judicial forum with the object to examine whether such acts were in accordance with law or they suffered with any illegality. But this principle is not immune to a legal fetter. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court would come into play when as a jurisdictional fact it is held on examining the relevant facts that authorities or forum did not act according to law, transgressed their mandate or acted with mala fide. Without rendering a finding on this score assumption of jurisdiction by the Civil Court in place of Special Tribunal would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction. The bar of jurisdiction contained under section 22 of the West Pakistan Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1958 is not to be taken as absolute ouster of the jurisdiction but the Civil Court possesses the jurisdiction to examine the act of the department. It, therefore, follows that although the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine such acts but without determining any fact having the jurisdictional basis, the Civil Court ordinarily should respect ouster of the jurisdiction in regulating its plenary jurisdiction.
4. In the present case both the Courts below fell into an error in assuming the jurisdiction without determining the facts forming basis to assume jurisdiction and proceeded to determine the annual letting value of the property which originally was the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Department under the West Pakistan Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1958'. Both the Courts below in their judgments did not point out any jurisdictional fault on the part of the Excise and Taxation Department in ascertaining the annual letting value of the property in question, therefore, there did not exist any jurisdictional fact whereby they could exercise the jurisdiction. In the absence of any such fact the bar contained under section 22 of the West Pakistan Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1964 would come into play and the exercise of jurisdiction of both the Courts below was not warranted in the circumstances of the case.
5. In view of my finding herein before, the revision petition is accepted, the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and declared to have no legal effect and without jurisdiction.