1987 PLP 326 (MLD)

S.42--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100--Mutation proceedings--Interference by civil Court whether proper--Revenue Officers being public functionaries no injunction, held, could be issued to interfere with their functions--Grant injunction being discretionary, findings of two Courts below, refusing such discretionary relief was upheld by High Court in second appeal. Ch. Muhammad Hasan for Appellant. Facts giving rise to this regular second appeal are that one Fateh Muhammad made a gift of his entire landed property in favour of the appellant, Qadeer Ahmad. It was an oral gift which was allowed by a mutation. After the death of Fateh Muhammad, the mutation of gift was challenged by respondent No.1, Mst. Rashida Bibi, by means of an appeal. She claims to be the daughter of Fateh Muhammad. Her appeal was accepted and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit claiming ownership of the land on the basis of gift and assailing order of the Collector by which he accepted the above appeal. By way of consequential relief, he prayed. for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.1 from pursuing mutation proceedings following the order of remand. Plaint of the suit was rejected by a Civil Judge inter alia on the ground that the mutation proceedings could not be interfered with by the Civil Court. Order of the learned Civil Judge was assailed by the appellant by taking appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence this second appeal. 2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not ask for any injunction against the Revenue authorities and that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to issue injunction against respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 is restrained from participating in the mutation proceedings, it would obviously amount to interference with these proceedings. This would, in fact, be interference with the working of the Revenue authorities who are public functionaries. It was, therefore, rightly held by the two Courts below that no injunction could be issued to interfere with their functions. 3. It seems that the appellant acted with undue haste in bringing the suit. Mutation proceedings are still pending before the Revenue Officer concerned. If their result happens to be in favour of the appellant he will not have to bother any more. However, if the position turns out to be otherwise, he would be at liberty to file a fresh suit claiming ownership of the land in dispute. It was not denied by the learned counsel that the reliefs claimed by the appellant in a suit were discretionary in nature, and, in the circumstances mentioned above, the two Courts below were not wrong in refusing to proceed with the suit brought by the appellant. 4. For the reasons given above, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders under appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./Q-2/L Appeal dismissed.