1979 PLP 551 (CLC)

O. VII, r. 11 read with Auqaf (Federal Control) Act (LVI of 1976), Ss. 11, 12, 13 & 21-Plaintiff challenging notification issued under Act-Provisions of Act, held, bar jurisdiction of civil Court in matter.-[Jurisdiction]. Ch. Abdul Wahid for Appellants. Mahmood Ahmad Khan for Respondents. In this second appeal, the judgment dated 26-3-1978 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala affirming on appeal the order dated 26-2-1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Gujranwala rejecting the plaint of the appellants under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. has been called in question.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that they were the owners of the land in dispute through adverse possession and that the Notification No. 2/4/AGA/77(26) dated 17-8-1977 issued by the respondent was illegal and ex parte and as such was not binding on the appellants with the consequential relief by way of a permanent injunction that the respondents should not interfere in the possession and proprietary rights of the appellants in the land in dispute, situate in village Mandiala Waraicb, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, seized of the matter found that the suit was barred by time and consequently he rejected the plaint, by his order dated 26-2-1978. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, who upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 26-3-1978. Hence this second appeal.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaint had been rejected by the trial Court on account of the same being barred by time, limitation having been reckoned from 1950-51 when entry in the jamabandl was made adverse to the appellants. He submitted that the entry aforementioned could be rebutted by the appellants and as such rejection of the plaint as being barred by time was not called for in the circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the learned first Appellate Court also did not advert to the matter in its proper perspective which resulted in the wrong decision taken by it.

4. I enquired from the learned counsel as to whether any motion had been made by the appellants before the Revenue Courts about correction of the alleged wrong entry made in 1950-51 to which he replied in the negative. It may be pertinently pointed out that under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act also, the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred in matter enumerated therein which, inter alia, include the correction of entries in the jamabandi. The orders of the Courts blow, therefore, are unexceptionable in that they have rightly found that the plaint as presented before them was barred by time and consequently liable ,to rejection under Order VII rule 11, C. P. C. The plaint as presented also challenges a notification issued under the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976. Section 11 of the said Act lays down that any person claiming any interest in any Waqf property in respect of which a notification has been issued may make a petition to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the Waqf property is situate. Section 12 ibid lays down that appeal against a decision of the District Court made under section 11 shall be appealable to the High Court. Again, section 13 makes the orders of the District Court or of the High Court as the case may be. as final. Section 21 bars the jurisdiction of other Courts to question the validity of anything done under the Act. Admittedly the rejected plain challenges a notification issued under the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976 and a conjunctive reading of the afore-mentioned provisions of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in the matter. The suit, therefore, was not only barred by time but also barred in view of the provisions of the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976 and consequently the plaint pertaining thereto was liable to rejection. No valid exception can, therefore, be taken in second appeal against the rejection of the plaint in the case in hand. I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.