ZIA PERVAZ, J.--- By applications bearing No. 7398/2001 and 7399/2001, moved on behalf of defendants Nos.' 1 and 3 respectively under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Defendants seek rejection of the plaint filed in the above suit. In support of these applications Mr. Safdar Hussain Shah Bukhari, Advocate for defendant No 1 has advanced his detailed arguments. His contentions are that out of the property mentioned in the plaint two agricultural properties mentioned at paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the plaint are at Anodic, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, only the third property is located at PECHS, Karachi, which rs within the jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel has also referred to prayer at clause C, D and E which are as follows:-
(c) Declare that all the properties mentioned under paras 2 and 4 there in above are liable to the partition for the purpose of distribution of the shares to the respective share holder and legal heirs.
(d) Order for partition, sale and payment of 1/3 share from the agricultural land detailed under para 4(b) of the plaint and 2/9 share from the agricultural land detailed under para 4(a) herein above, to the plaintiff, after deducting the expenditure which may incur for sale of the same.
(e) The building on plot No. 63/0, Block-2 PECHS, Karachi be sold to the plaintiff at the market price and vacant physical possession be handed over to the plaintiff after making payment of the respective shares according to Mohammedan law, to the remaining heirs by the plaintiff.
His contention is that joint power-of-attorney was revoked in 1989 as stated in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint and the plaintiff has instituted this suit in 1998, which is badly time-barred.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, pertaining to the exercise of power. Of revenue authority and stated that the dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities only. He has placed reliance on the case of Luxmandass v.
Jimnidas (AIR 1930 Lahore) and Syed Mir Shah v. Muhammad Badshah (NLR 1985 Revenue 181), learned counsel has also placed reliance on Section 16 of CPC and Order 20, Rule 18 and argued that the decree pertaining to agricultural land cannot be passed in this suit and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. His contention are that the plaint is barred in view of the above provision of law and liable to be rejected under the provision of Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Mr. Bashir Ahmed A. Qureshi, Advocate for defendant No. 3 has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Safdar Hussain Shah Bukhari, Advocate. It is further argued that the respective shares of the parties are not disputed as such no pronouncement from Court on this point is required.
3. Mr. Umer Qureshi, Advocate in his reply has stated that on 8.10.2001 the issues have already been framed covering these points with the consent of the learned counsel. He has further argued that the relief for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- is also involved for which a cause of action accrued when the plaintiff received intimation of sale of certain property without giving full details and detention of Rs.25,00,000/- belonging jointly to the parties and intimated to. The plaintiff on or about 18.9.1998 in writing as disclosed in paragraph No. 16 of the plaint and the suit was instituted in pursuance to the contents of said letter. A bare reading of Order 20, Rule 18 reveals that the Civil Court in exercise of jurisdiction may determine the shares of the parties in agricultural properties involved and in pursuance of such determination carried out by the Civil Court the partition of agricultural property is effected as by the 'Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of Section 54. The function of determination of share is not carried out by the Collector,. Or any gazetted subordinate of ,the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of Section 54. It is also admitted that one of the property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and the matter pertaining to all the ancestors property is maintainable before this Court as well as to the relief for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is settled law that in case where any of the reliefs can be granted by the Court, the plaint is not liable to be rejected. Provision of Section 16, C.P.C. Is not applicable to proceedings before a High Court in exercise of original Civil jurisdiction as provided under Section 120, C.P.C.
Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.
4. By this application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. Plaintiff has prayed for multiple reliefs. At the outset, on being pointed, Mr. Urner Qureshi, Advocate stated that he does not press the application and drops the prayer with regard to the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- lying with defendant No. '1 as claimed by plaintiff. However with regard to the property both the learned counsel stated that the possession of ancestorial property and their shares have already been referred to in details in the respective pleadings and they undertake not to alter such position till the disposal of the suit. In view of the statement this C.M.A. 106/99 is disposed of accordingly.