The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is allottee and in possession of the suit-land under Grow More Food Scheme and that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have no concern with the said land. In the suit he had assailed the following orders as illegal and ineffective on his rights:--
(1) Order dated 30-8-1983 passed by District Collector, Vehari whereby his allotment was cancelled on the ground of having been procured through fraud and the suit-land was resumed.
(2) Order dated 21-11-1983 passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolida--tion) whereby petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of District Collector was dismissed.
(3) Order of District Collector, Vehari dated 26-10-1991 whereby suit-land was allotted to Abbas Ali predecessor---in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
(4) Order dated 25-5-1992 passed by Additional Commissioner (R), Multan, Camp at Vehari whereby petitioner's appeal against the above said order of District Collector was dismissed; and
(5) Order dated 30-8-2001 passed by Member, Board of Revenue whereby petitioner's revision against the above said order of A.C.(R) was dismissed.
2. All the aforesaid orders were assailed as against law, facts and mala fide and prayer in the suit was that the petitioner be declared as entitled to the grant of proprietary rights in the suit-land and the concerned respondents be directed to grant proprietary rights in his favour and be further directed to correct entries in the Jamabandi showing the petitioner as owner of the suit-land.
3. Plaint of said suit was rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. By Civil Judge, Vehari on 11-6-2002 and appeal against that order was dismissed by District Judge, Vehari on 31-8-2002.
4. In this civil revision aforesaid orders of Civil Judge and that of the District Judge are assailed on the following grounds:--
(1) Both the Courts below have erred in law inasmuch as for the purpose of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C.
Only averments in the plaint could be considered.
(2) The petitioner had challenged orders of Revenue Authorities on various grounds, Civil Court had the jurisdiction to check the validity of the said orders, hence, controversy could only be resolved after recording evidence which was not done, therefore, both the Courts below had exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the civil revision and its annexures.
6. According to the contents of the plaint the suit was apparently barred by law of limitation because allotment of -the petitioner was cancelled and suit-land was resumed by the Collector on 30-8-1983 and his appeal against that order was dismissed by Additional Commissioner on 21-11- 1983. The order of cancellation of allotment and resumption of suit-land therefore, attained finality because it is not alleged in the plaint that against the aforesaid order dated 21-11-1983 any revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue.
7. The aforesaid orders were assailed in the suit which was instituted on 8-9-2001 i.e. After a period of about 18 years without any application for condoning the delay and plaint was apparently hopelessly barred by time to the extent of aforesaid orders and was' therefore, liable to rejection under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C.
8. The subsequent order dated 26-10-1991 had no nexus with the order of cancellation and resumption of the suit-land. It was an independent order regarding allotment of the suit-land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 which was challenged by petitioner before the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue without success.
9. After the cancellation of suit-land from the name of the petitioner and its resumption, the petitioner had no legal right or locus standi to challange the order of allotment made in favour of predecessor-in---interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5. For arguments sake even if it be assumed that the aforesaid orders are illegal, that fact per se could neither restore the suit-land to the petitioner nor would have any nullifying effect on the order of cancellation of the suit --and, hence, the relief claimed by the petitioner of declaring the order of cancellation of suit-land from his name as illegal and further relief that he is entitled to the grant of proprietary rights could not have been granted to him under the law.
10. Since the suit appeared from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law, the trial Court was therefore, not required to frame issues and to record evidence. The plaint was liable to outright rejection, hence, no illegality or irregularity was committed by learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court respectively in rejecting the plaint and dismissing the appeal against the order of rejection of the plaint.
11. Civil revision being devoid of an\ merit is accordingly dismissed in limine.