P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.‑The plaintiff‑appellant, hereinafter called the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 3,000 was due from defendant‑respon dent No. 3 and not from the appellant. He also prayed for injunction against the defendant‑respondents 1 and 2 restraining them from recovering the said land revenue from the plaintiff. The defendant‑respondent No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner and the defendant No. 2 is the Mukhtiarkar.

2. The learned District Judge who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of his share out of 2,200 acres of land and therefore he was liable to pay the land revenue. On that finding the learned Judge dismissed the suit with costs. Mr. G. H. Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. In support of his contention he relied on section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. Section 11 reads as under : "No Civil Court shall entertain any suit, against the Crown on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to bringing his suit, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force as, within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suit, it was possible to present." It would appear from a perusal of the above provision of law that the condition precedent to give jurisdiction to the Civil Court is that the plaintiff must, in the first instance, prove that he has exhausted all his right of appeal as against the act challenged in the Civil Court. We have, therefore, to see whether the plaintiff has proved that he has exhausted all his right of appeal against the demand of the arrears of land revenue from him. In this connection it would be useful to reproduce a few lines from para. 6 of the plaint "At the outset notices of demand indicated arrears as against Deh Dayari. Plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The Tapedar resiled from his former statement and averred in writing that arrears were no‑t against Layari but against Loan." From a perusal of the plaint it would appear that the plaint does not disclose, except what is stated in para. 6, that the plaintiff exhausted all his right of appeal.

3. In the written statement of the Deputy Commissioner and Mukhtiarkar it was pleaded in para. 12 that the suit was barred under the Land Revenue Code and the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act. An issue was also framed on the question of jurisdiction. In spite of the fact that there was an issue on the question of jurisdiction the plaintiff in his statement before the Court did not disclose that he has exhausted all his remedies by way of appeal. On behalf of the plaintiff no other witness had been examined. It is strange that the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act. The finding of the learned District Judge runs as under "The plaintiff has previously sought his remedy for the revenue authorities. He has come to this Court as a last resort. Therefore the Revenue Jurisdiction Act does not offer any bar." The learned Advocate for the appellant has been unable to show that the above finding is based on any evidence. He has only referred to para. 6 of the plaint which we have already repro duced above. In the first place pleading of the parties cannot take the place of evidence; in the second place, para. 6 does n too disclose that the plaintiff had exhausted all his remedies by way of appeal. Under section 204 of the Land Revenue Code an appeal would lie from the decision of the Revenue Commissioner to the Provincial Government. Even if it be taken that the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the demand notice of arrears of land revenue to the Revenue Commissioner there is nothing to show that he had filed an appeal to the Provincial Government. We are of the view that the provision of section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 is mandatory. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he has exhausted all his remedy by way of appeal to the revenue authorities before filing the present suit. The suit was therefore barred. We would, therefore, dismiss the appeal but would make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the present case. R. B. A. Appeal dismissed.