P L D 2024 Balochistan 30 (PLP)

SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J.

Before us, the petitioner has brought the captioned petition seeking annulment of the order dated 27th April, 2018 ("Impugned order") rendered by learned Qazi Musakhail ("Trial Court"), whereby, the plaint was returned to the petitioner under Oder VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C."), which was endorsed and upheld on 01st March, 2019 by learned Members Majlis-e-Shoora, Musakhail ("Appellate Court").

2. Suit was filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court regarding a property bearing Khatooni No.40/44, Khata No.4 measuring 9 Rod 14 pole situated at Mouza Talli Halqa Sadar, against the defendants including revenue department, which was returned under Oder VII Rule 10 of CPC to the petitioner on the ground that under section 2 of the Balochistan Dispute Shariat Application Regulation, 1976 ("Regulation of 1976") the court of Qazi cannot entertain a suit where Government is a party. In appeal filed by the petitioner the appellate Court on 01st March, 2019 upheld the order dated 27th April, 2018 ibid. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that various applications filed by the petitioner before revenue authorities and the before the Court of learned Qazi have been returned to approach the proper forum, thus if any order is made to determine the forum, he would be satisfied and guided. Conversely, the learned counsel for the private respondents contended that the petitioner has been dragging the respondents in various fora without any right and legal justification, as such, requested for dismissal of the petition. Learned AAG also requested for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the both the courts below have rightly returned the plaint.

4. We have cautiously and carefully examined the record in view of the contentions of adversarial parties. The learned Qazi while returning the plaint though referred to section 2 of the Regulation of 1976, but did not suggest the court of competent jurisdiction. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court while upholding the order of the learned Trial Court also did not refer to the competent court, having jurisdiction. Obviously, in the earlier scheme of Regulation of 1976, where the government functionary was a party to a lis, the court, having jurisdiction was a court of Civil Judge, but after promulgation of Twenty-fifth Amendment Act No. XXXVII of 2018, Article 246 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was inserted and amended, whereby the tribal areas were merged into respective provinces. Regulation of 1976 was applicable in tribal areas of Balochistan, but after the amendment ibid, the tribal areas have been merged and made part of the province of Balochistan, henceforth, the tribal areas are no more in existence. The powers enjoyed by the President of Pakistan in case of Federally Administered Tribal Areas ("FATA") and the Governor of Balochistan in case of Provincially Administered Tribal Areas ("PATA") are no more available to them under Clause 4 of Article 247 of the Constitution. In this regard reference can be made to a judgment rendered by this Court in C.R.P. No.209 of 2011 "Naimatullah v. Faizullah".

5. In view of the above, vide Notification No.240/RHC/JM/2019 dated 10th October 2019 of this Court, the litigations pending before learned Qazi Courts and learned Member Majlis-e-Shoora, exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation of 1976 stood transferred to the Civil Courts having original jurisdiction constituted under the Balochistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.

6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the matters related to the civil disputes are to be adjudicated by Civil Courts constituted under the Balochistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and, as such, the petitioner having any civil dispute regarding property may approach a Civil Court, having ordinary jurisdiction. In light of above, the petition being bereft of merits is dismissed with no order as to cost. MQ/51/Bal. Petition dismisse