On 19-6-1996, the respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioners as well as the remaining respondents. In the plaint it was stated that Muhammad Iqbal Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 12-F was the owner in possession of land measuring 12 Marlas bearing Sq.
No.192, Killa No.10/4 who sold it to the respondent No.1 on 10-9-1979 and a Mutation No.2237 was attested on 9-9-1989 that after purchasing the land he constructed a house and is continuing in possession that Wali Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, filed an appeal against order dated 23-5-1987 of Consolidation Officer, sheikhupura complaining that in the Scheme Register No. 113, Killa Nos. 10/4 has been changed into Killa No. 10/7 while Killa Vo.10/4 has been entered in Khatoni of respondents Nos.2 to 12-F. This appeal was dismissed on 22-4-1990.
Revision petition vas dismissed by Additional Commissioner (C) on 31-7-1990. Thereafter, said Wali Muhammad filed a revision petition which was allowed by respondent No.14 on 10-4-1996. This order was stated to be against law and facts and ineffective upon the rights of the said respondent No. 1 on the ground that the said respondent No. 14 has ignored the fact that the said respondent No. 1 had purchased a specific piece of land and had raised construction. Written statement was filed objecting that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction under section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. On merits it was stated that the original scheme was illegally and unauthorisedly amended in the year 1987 and ultimately the said order was set aside by the respondent No.14. An application was also filed under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Stating that the suit is barred by Law. This application was resisted. Vide order dated 19-5-1997, learned trial Court rejected the plaint. Against this order an appeal was filed which has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 27-2-1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to assume the jurisdiction not, vesting in him as also has directed the, trial of a case which is not cognizable by a Civil Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that since mala fide has been alleged, Civil Court would be having jurisdiction and the learned Additional District Judge has acted within his domain in ordering a trial of the case.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records available on the file. I have already narrated above the material contents of the plaint. I have also examined the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has observed that when the said respondent No. 1 purchased the property, the said predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 12-F was shown as owner in possession of the property in dispute. To my mind the said observation of the learned Additional District Judge is result of failure on his part to read the plaint as Well as the document accompanying it i.e. The order of the Member, Board of Revenue. Now in the plaint it has been stated that the land was purchased in the year 1979 whereas the mutation was attested in the year 1989. It is in the plaint itself that the present petitioners felt aggrieved of the order dated 23-5-1987 of the Consolidation Officer. Now this was the order whereby the original scheme was changed and Killa No.10/4 was entered in the Khatoni of the said predecessor of the said respondents. This is the finding of the Member, Board of Revenue, and it has not been questioned in the plaint that in the original scheme the suit property had been allotted to Wali Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. This means that on the face of the plaint, in the year 19791 when the alleged sale took place, the said vendor of the respondent No. 1 was not recorded as owner. It was in the year 1987 when the records were changed and thereafter mutation was sanctioned in the year 1989 it was immediately challenged by the petitioners in consolidation hierarchy. This being so, there is neither a question' of title involved nor any mala fides. The Board of Revenue was duly authorised to hear and decide the matter under provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. So far as the findings of law or fact are concerned, the Civil Court would not be having jurisdiction to determine the validity of the same.
5. For all that has been discussed above, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura cannot be sustained. This civil revision accordingly is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 27-2-1998 or learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura is set aside while one passed by the learned trial Court on 19-5-1997 rejecting the plaint of respondent No.1 is restored.
6. No order as to costs.