1979 PLP 186 (CLC)

O. VII, s. 10-Return of suit-Suit cannot be dismissed on account of its having been instituted before a wrong forum-Plaint, in such case, to be returned for being filed before competent Court. S. M. Zamir Zaidi for Petitioners. This civil revision is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge of Lahore whereby he had directed that the plaint in a suit instituted by the petitioners, Muhammad Jawan and another, at Lahore, be returned to them for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction of Kasur.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioners against the respon dents, Syed Abdul Qasim and three others for a declaration to the effect that they were owners of 32 kanals of land situate in village Sikandarpura, Tehsil and District Kasur; and that a power of attorney, dated the 26th August, 1975, executed by defendant No. 1, Syed Abdul Qasim in favour of defendant No. 4, Abdur Rehman; a decree, dated 17th April, 1976, passed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Malik Fazal Karim and Abdul Hameed ; and a registered sale-deed based on the aforesaid decree and the power of attorney were liable to be cancelled for being void and ineffective. By way of consequential relief, they also asked for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants Nos. 2 to 4 from claiming ownership of the land in dispute or taking possession or produce of the said land or transferring that land to any person. When the suit came up before Mr. Masood Umar, Civil Judge, Lahore, he dismissed the same on the ground that "the property in dispute is situated in the Kasur District" and, therefore, under section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), he had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiffs (petitioners) went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The view taken by him was that as the land m suit was situated in Kasur District, the plaint should have been returned, under Order VII, rule 10 of the Code, for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction and that the order relating to the dismissed of the suit was not warranted by law. He, therefore, directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs so that they could present the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kasur, if so advised.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners have some up in revision to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the suit was for cancellation of three documents, it could, under section 30 of the Code, be tried by the Court at Lahore because all the defendants are residents of the Lahore District. He relied on the cases of Mst. Zeenat Bibi and 3 others v. Mehr Din and another (P L D 1978 Lah. 249), Daibakilal Basak v. lqbal Ahmad Qareshi and another (P L D 1965 Dacca 439), Mafizuddin Khan v. Jadu Pramanik and others (P L D 1960 Dacca 103) Nur Muhammad v. Mst. Karim Bibi (P L D 1959 Lah. 932) and Janandasundari Shaha v. Madhahbhandra Mala (A I R 1932 Cal. 482) to support his contention. I am unable to uphold the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, It is not disputed that the land in dispute is in the district of Kasur. The petitioners are primarily seeking a declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the said land. Thus, their suit is for determination of their "right and interest in immovable property" and falls within the purview of clause (c) of section 16 of the Code. This view is also supported by the fact that they are claiming a permanent injunction with a view to guarding against any interference in their use and occupation of the land in dispute, No doubt they have also (I should say incidentally) sought a declaration to the effect that certain documents relating to the land in dispute are of no legal effect but taking their prayer as a whole, their suit attracts the provisions of clause (c) of section 16 of the Code. It is not their plea that the suit falls within the ambit of the proviso to section

16. Their sole contention is that it could be instituted at Lahore, under section 20 of the Code. The provisions of section 20 can, however, be pressed into service only if a suit is not hit by the limitations laid down in the earlier provisions of the Code, including section

16. Since the suit does not get out of the teeth of section 16, the provisions of section 20 cannot be made use of by the petitioners. As for the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Mst. Zeenar Bibi and 3 others, the plaintiffs had the option to file suit at one place at the other which is not true of the case in hand. As for the cases of Daibakilai Bask, Nur Muhammad and Jnanadasundari Shaha the questions decided therein were other than the one in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. All the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are, therefore, of no help to him.

7. In view of what has gone above, the two Courts below have rightly held that the Courts at Lahore had no jurisdiction to try the petitioners suit which should have been brought before a competent Court of the district of Kasur. It has been correctly observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the suit could not be dismissed by the trial Court on account of its having been instituted before a wrong forum. He was, therefore, perfectly justified in making order for the return of the plaint. .

8. As the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, the revision is dismissed in limine, S. Q Petition dismissed.