On 27-1-2001 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that father of the petitioners was an owner in village Ditta Khail Kacha, Tehsil and District Mianwali and that the land was inherited by them vide Mutation No,6632 attested on 25-3-1971; that the said land of the deceased predecessor-in-interest had been acquired by WAPDA for Chishma Barrage. The land inherited by the petitioners and acquired for the said purpose was classified as 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas Nul Chahi (petitioner No,1), 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas Nul Chahi (petitioner No,3) and 5 Kanals, 18 Marlas Chahi (petitioner No,2). This classification was made with reference to Rabi 1971. On the basis of this assessm ent entitlement Certificates Nos,32, 33 and 34 were issued by land was allotted and delivered. Thereafter, it was stated that these certificates have been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner illegally; that appeal filed before the 'Commissioner, Sargodha Division was dismissed on 6-3-1993 while revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 15-8- 2000. With these averments a declaration was sought and that the said orders cancelling the certificates of entitlement are illegal and void. The respondent in its written statement asserted that the entitlement certificates were wrongly issued and were correctly cancelled. It was also pointed out that Writ Petition No,2296 of 2000 filed by the petitioners against the said orders of the Collector, Commissioner and the Member Board of Revenue has been dismissed by this Court on 3-11-2000. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 28-6-2001 rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. A first appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge Mianwali on 13-9-2001.
2. Learned counsel with reference to the case of Jewan and 7 others v. 'Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCM R 826), vehemently argues that the learned Courts below have acted without jurisdiction while rejecting the plaint. According to the learned counsel for purposes of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. only the plaint could have been looked into and this rule has been violated by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders.
3. I have gone through the reconstructed records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already referred to the material contents of the plaint above. I have examined the impugned orders in the light of the plaint, I find that the learned Courts below have not at all referred to any document other than plaint while passing the impugned order. It is mentioned iii the plaint itself that" the Collector had cancelled the entitlement certificates and that the appeal and revision were dismissed. It is true that the respondent had brought it to the notice of the Courts below that this Court had also dismissed the writ petition filed against the said orders but then it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have walked out of their domain by referring to the said judgment of this Court. To my mind, it was for the petitioners to have mentioned the fact in the plaint that this Court had rejected their writ petition against the orders being questioned by them in the civil suit. They are in fact guilty of concealment of facts. Be that as it may, the learned counsel does not deny the said fact. -I may here refer to a recently reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs (200/ , SCMR 338), wherein it has been observed in para.14 of the judgment at page 342 of the report as follows:-- "14. Besides, averments made in the' plaint other material available on record which on its own strength is legally sufficient to completely refute the claim of the plaintiff, can also be looked into for the purpose of rejection of the plaint. It does not necessarily mean that the other material shall be taken as conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, but it actually moderates that other material on its own intrinsic value be considered alongwith the averments made in the plaint."
To my mind, the learned Courts below have acted within their jurisdiction, rather they were bound to take notice of the judgment of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed against the order impugned before the learned Civil Judge.
4. Learned counsel then tried to argue that notwithstanding the said judgment of the Court, the suit can proceed. I am afraid the contention is misconceived at least in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I confronted the learned counsel with ground (c) (para.l1) of this civil revision wherein it has been alleged that this Court had committed an error while dismissing the writ petition in limine. Now it is but obvious that if the relief is dependent upon setting aside of the said judgment of this Court, the same cannot be granted by a Civil Judge or for that matter by the Additional District Judge or by even this Court hearing the civil revision. In case the petitioners were aggrieved of the said judgment, the same had to be challenged in the manner prescribed by law.
5. Learned counsel then argues that this Court while deciding the writ petition earlier did not take note of a later notification issued on the subject. The learned counsel then .corrected himself and stated that the said later notification was not brought to the notice of this Court whom the earlier judgment was rendered in the writ petition. If this is so, even then the same may, if so permitted, by law, constitute a ground for review of judgment of this Court but not a ground to challenge the judgment by filing a civil suit.
6. Learned counsel then referred to some judgments rendered under the provisions of the Punjab Lando Revenue Act, 1967 to urge that the suit was still competent. I am afraid the said Act by itself provides a right to a party to get its title established in a civil Court by filing a declaratory suit notwithstanding the entries to the contrary in the Revenue Record. Nothing, therefore, turns on the said contention.
7. No other point has been urged. The civil revision is dismissed in limine.