2016 PLP 714 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Order dated 24-05-2014, of the learned District Judge Skardu, has been challenged through this petition. Respondents of this petition have filed a cross revision petition (C.Rev. No.21/2014), challenging impugned order. I therefore, pass my orders on this file with direction to the office for placing copy of this order on C.Rev.No.21/2014 also as subject matter of both the petitions is same.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.71/2010 which was dismissed through order dated 30-03-2013, and on appeal (CFA No.03/13), the first appellate court passed the impugned order, wherein, decreed the suit partly. Feeling aggrieved from the same, parties filed the above referred cross revision petitions.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. In my opinion, the case in hand is a very interesting case and pleadings of the parties are not only worth perusal but are very important also for correct conclusion of the case. In this connection, first of all I reproduce the most important part of the material available on file, which in my opinion is para No.(i) of para No.10 of the impugned judgment, and for ready reference, I reproduce the same hereunder:-

10. Now the point of relief. In view of the findings on points for determination, impugned judgment/ decree dated 30-03-2013 regarding dismissal of civil suit No.71/2010 is hereby set aside and following decree is passed-- i. Plaintiffs/appellants and defendants/respondents both have failed to prove their valid title over the suit property. On the other hand it is abundantly proved on record that ownership of suit property still rests with the Government, however to some extent it is proved on record that said Inayat Ali Khan s/o Shahrukh Khan was the tenant over the suit property and entries shown in the document Exh.P/3 are proved on record. Therefore it is declared that Provincial Government is the owner of suit property and plaintiffs/appellants being the lineal descendants of said Inayat Ali Khan including the daughters namely Mst. Nargis, Mst. Tahira, Mst. Laila and Mst. Maria are declared to be the tenants over the suit property. Names of daughters of said Inayat Ali Khan are included in the array of plaintiffs. ii. iii iv. v. vi. vii. Pleadings of the parties are also worth perusal, particularly, in para No.8 of the plaint, respondents/ plaintiffs have clearly averred that cause of action to the suit accrued to them when petitioners/defendants filed reply to the petition of plaintiffs for ejectment of defendants from the tenancy in the court of Assistant Collector and thereby denied ownership of the plaintiffs to the suit land. This shows that per averments of plaint respondents/plaintiffs claimed titled to the suit land on the basis of their alleged relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioners/ defendants. Then let us turn to the contents of paras Nos.3 and 4 of parawise written statement, wherein, petitioners/defendants have clearly averred that the suit land is Government land (Khalisa Sarkar). The documentary evidence of the parties is also important and worth perusal, particularly, Exh-P/1 to Exh-P/3, wherein, the column of ownership shows that the suit land is Government land.

4. From perusal of record, it is further evident that parties are going through a prolonged litigation only because the owner of suit land, i.e., the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan is a silent spectator. In the circumstances of the case, Exh-P/4 is the document that gives cause of action for the present suit and Exh-P/4 is order of Tehsildar Khaplu. No civil court can take cognizance of a civil suit on the ground that order of Tehsildar, a Revenue Officer of very low grade, is wrong or correct. The revenue forum has its own stages and parties are supposed to challenge the order of Tehsildar in the revenue appellate forum.

5. From plain perusal of impugned order, it is evident that the learned District Court has declared respondents or their sisters as tenants of the suit land. This act of the District Court is clearly beyond his jurisdiction. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to do the job of a revenue court. I, therefore, deem it appropriate and necessary to interfere in the impugned order. Petition accepted. Impugned order of the District Court stands set aside. Order dated 30-03-2013 of the learned Civil Court varied to the effect that the dismissal of the suit is incorrect and wrong and instead the learned Civil Judge must have rejected the plaint. I, therefore, reject the plaint of the suit and parties to the case or either of the parties are free to exhaust the revenue forum and then to move the Civil Court and that also duly impleading the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan as party to the case, in the revenue proceedings as well as in the civil proceedings. Petition accepted accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. This file be consigned to record. ZC/126/GB Revision allowed.