1987 PLP 1953 (CLC)

Zaheer Ahmed and 6 others v. Allah Ditta and 15 others PLD 1983 Lah. 256 ref. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by one Muhammad Sharif and petitioners Nos. 4 to 6, Muhammad Nazir and others. Muhammad Sharif has since died and petitioners Nos.l to 3 are his legal representatives. The respondents, Imdad Hussain and others, were defendants in the suit. It was filed to challenge an order of consolidation authorities by which the plaintiffs land was exchanged with the land of the defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the exchange was ordered without their concurrence. The suit was dismissed by a Civil Judge on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The plaintiffs went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence this Civil Revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the plaintiffs did not object to the operation of the consolidation but assailed the order passed by the consolidation authorities their suit was not hit by the provisions of section 26 of the said Ordinance. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others v. Allah Ditta and 15 others P L D 1983 Lah. 256.

3. As pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge, in the case of Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others, cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that if suit is brought to attack any order of a consolidation authority on the ground of fraud it would not come within the mischief of section 26 of the said Ordinance. In the present case, no plea of fraud, mala fide or want of jurisdiction was raised by the plaintiffs. The rule laid down in the case of Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others is, therefore, not applicable in the instant case. No other point was canvassed by the learned counsel to save the plaintiffs suit from the application of the provisions of section 26 of the said Ordinance.

4. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned lower Courts had not gone into the question relating to the legality of the impugned order of the consolidation authorities. Issue No.3 was framed by the learned Civil Judge in this regard but it was not decided by him after it was found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. For the same reason, no finding on issue No. 3 was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. Since it was held by the learned lower Courts that civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, they are not to blame for not deciding issue No.3 in respect of the legality of the order relating to exchange of land in dispute.

5. There is no merit in this civil revision. It is dismissed in limine. H. B. T./M‑219/L Revision dismissed