1987 PLP 1046 (SCMR)

‑‑‑S. 25‑‑Land settlement‑‑Jurisdiction of civil Courts‑‑Writ petitions involving question of permanent entitlement of land sought to be withdrawn with permission to file civil suits‑‑High Court's observation that civil suit be decided on its own merits, impugned on question of jurisdiction of civil Courts‑‑Supreme Court while disposing of appeal ex parte directed that suits filed by respondents may proceed but it would be open to petitioners to raise all legal pleas open to them in their defence including the plea that civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit and directed civil Court to decide plea of jurisdiction in accordance with law. Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 297 to 300 of 1985. In view of very short legal question involved, there is no need to narrate all the facts in these cases. Four writ petitions out of which these appeals through leave of the Court have arisen were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court with the following short order: "Since disputed questions of fact arise for decision in the present constitutional petition which may not be appropriate for this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction to resolve, learned counsel prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with right to file a civil suit to vindicate his civil rights in the property alleged to have been transferred to him by the competent Settlement Authorities. Disposed of accordingly. Civil suit when filed will be decided on its own merits." Leave to appeal was granted to examine the argument raised on behalf of the appellants that the controversy involved in the writ petitions related to "permanent entitlement of the land" and that "the civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits"‑‑therefore, the observation made by the High Court that the civil suits should be decided on merits, would prevent it from deciding the question of jurisdiction. While granting leave to appeal, it was observed by this Court that during the pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court, "the suits filed by the respondents may proceed but it will be open to the petitioners to raise all the legal pleas open to them in their defence including the plea that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit". The respondents have chosen not to appear so as to defend these appeals in spite of the fact that the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court was made open by this Court in the leave granting order. The respondents have accordingly been proceeded ex parte. Learned counsel for the appellants has not sought any further relief except that the aforenoted part of the leave granting order may be made order of this Court. The request is neither unlawful nor improper. It is reasonable. We order accordingly. It will be open to the appellants to raise all the legal pleas open to them in their defence including the plea that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. As and when the plea of jurisdiction is raised before the civil Court, it will decide the same in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court or the High Court shall not be a bar in this behalf. These appeals with the above orders are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.I. /S‑26/S Order accordingly.