2001 PLP 1019 (CLC)

Instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29‑7‑1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge affirming .the judgment and decree, dated 19‑1‑1980 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Sadiq, father of the petitioner, was Lambardar in Chak No. 139/DB, Yazman. The former Bahawalpur State promulgated a Scheme vide order, dated 30‑3‑1949, whereby each Lambardar was allotted a certain piece of land. It was further directed that later on such lands shall be sold to Lambardar on the terms and conditions to be chalked out by the State. Accordingly father of the petitioner initially deposited a sum of Rs.1,275 towards cost of said land vide receipt, dated 7‑8‑1950. The petitioner/plaintiff alleges that thereafter his father was never issued any notice by the respondent for depositing price of land. Accordingly he approached respondent requesting him to accept the remaining sale price and confer proprietary rights upon him said request was turned down by the respondent vide order, dated 25‑4‑1975. Hence, he was constrained to file the suit. The said suit was resisted by the defendant/respondent, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised and contentions on merits were also controverted.

3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? (2) Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, dated 25‑4‑1975 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction for the reason given in the plaint? (3) Whether the valuation for the purposes of court‑fee has been fixed incorrectly? If so, what is the correct valuation? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the suit‑land? If so, on what terms? OPP (5) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action? OPD (6) Relief.

4. In support of their respective stands both the parties adduced evidence and finally the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 19‑1‑1980, which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence, the instant civil revision.

5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

6. Admittedly, plaintiff/petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,275 on 7‑8‑1950 in respect of suit property and later on agitated the matter before the D.C./Collector, Bahawalpur for the conferment of proprietary rights subject to the payment of the remaining price in respect of land which he claims to have been given to him being holder of Lambardari Grant. His contention did not find favour with the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, District Bahawalpur, who dismissed his petition vide order, dated 25‑4‑1975. It is fact that having been unsuccessful before DC/Collector, Bahawalpur, the plaintiff/petitioner did not agitate the matter before the higher forum and chose to file the instant civil suit. In this view of the matter, the very institution of suit is not warranted by law as the only remedy available to the plaintiff/petitioner was to agitate his claim before an appropriate higher forum and having been unsuccessful, he could agitate the matter before the Civil Court. Thus, the Courts below have rightly non‑suited him vide impugned judgments and decrees. There is no force in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. However, this decision shall not be construed to debar the plaintiff/petitioner to agitate his claim before any competent forum. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I‑41/L Revision dismissed.