2004 PLP 542 (CLC)

Muhammad Amin Khattak for Petitioners. Fateh Muhammad Khan for Respondent No.

1. Shamsuddin and others, petitioners/plaintiffs filed Suit No.62/1 of 1991 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chitral seeking declaration that they were owners in possession of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 to interfere into the disputed land was also prayed for. The said suit was resisted by Mst. Balkh Nisa/respondent No. 1 by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording pro and contra evidence of the parties returned/rejected the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. vide judgment and decree, dated 15‑8‑2000. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed Appeal No.172/13 of 2000 in the Court of learned District Judge/Zila Qazi, Chitral. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 20‑8‑2001. Being not contented with the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, the petitioners have filed the revision petition in hand.

2. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khattak, the learned counsel representing the petitioners, argued that there was no provision in the Shari‑Nizam‑e‑Adl Regulation, 1999 (Regulation No.1 of 1999), debarring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The judgments and decrees passed by the PATH Courts could be questioned before the Civil Court under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code but the Courts below failed to appreciate the same.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel representing respondent No.1 on notice in Civil Miscellaneous No.541 of 2002, argued that there was bar under section 12 of the Shari Nizam‑e‑Adl Regulation, 1999 and the Courts of competent jurisdiction under PATA had rightly exercised their jurisdiction and decided the suit filed by respondent No. 1, hence the findings of PATA Courts of competent jurisdiction could not be challenged before the Civil Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the revision petition.

5. The question that requires determination in this case is as to whether the Civil Court under section 9, C.P.C. has the jurisdiction to declare the judgments and decrees passed, by the PATA Courts to be illegal, the answer to this question is in negative. As per section 12 of the Shari Nizam‑e‑Adl Regulation, 1999, full protection was given to the legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability and penalty, forfeiture or punishment given by the competent Courts.

6. Moreover, the petitioners had fully participated and defended their rights before the PATH Courts. They had also filed appeal and revision before the Forums, therefore, after availing the remedies available to them, they cannot turn round and challenge the decisions passed by the competent Courts before the Civil Court. Wisdom in this regard has been drawn from the case of Shahzad Gul v. Additional Secretary, Home, Government of N.‑W.F.P. and others 1999 SCMR 1028.

7. There are concurrent findings of the learned Courts of competent jurisdiction. I have not been able to find out any illegality or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error/defect warranting interference in the impugned judgments and decrees. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine together with Civil Miscellaneous No.541 of 2002 and the status quo order passed on 19‑7‑2002 is recalled. M.H./4/P Revision dismissed.