P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

S. A. MAHMOOD, J.-This civil revision arises out of a suit filed by Malik Fazal Muhammad against the Province of West Pakistan, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chaman, and Malik Masoom, respondents Nos. 1 to 3, on the 7th of September, 1960. The amended plaint was put in on the 8th of March, 1961, in which the plaintiff alleged that the local Bazar Fund Chaman, had in 1947, entered into a written agreement with him, which must be with defendant No. 1, by which a garden was leased to him at an annual lease of Rs. 4,700, payable by the lessee subject to the condition that the lessor would supply sullage water throughout the year and that in case of failure in his obligation in the supply of sullage water the lessee had option to avoid the lease, which was for a period of four years. It was further alleged that the lessee obtained possession of the land and the lessor supplied sullage water regularly for the first two years and hence the plaintiff paid the lease money from the 1st of April 1947 to the 31st of March, 1949, but that in the beginning of the next financial year i.e. the first of April, 1949, to the 31st of March, 1950, there was a huge scarcity of water in Chaman, which resulted in total non-supply of sullage water to the land and the plaintiff-petitioner served a notice on the lessor and the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta on the 1st of May, 1949, to either assure the supply of sullage water or to treat the lease for the year from the 1st of April 1949 to the 31st of March, 1950, cancelled. The Bazar Fund Authorities, Chaman only cancelled the lease with effect from the 1st of April 1950, but did not take any notice of plaintiff-petitioner's demand for non-supply of sullage water during the period from 1st of April 1949 to the 31st of March, 1950. In consequence of non-fulfilment of its obligation, defendant No. 1 disentitled itself from the recovery of the lease money but under the defendant's pressure and coercion the plaintiff-petitioner had to pay Rs. 2,300. The petitioner refused to pay the balance of Rs. 2,400, as he was under no obligation to pay the lease money, on account of the breach of contract on the part of the lessor. The Bazar Fund Authority, Chaman, made an applica tion to the defendant No. 2 under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, 1910, for the recovery of Rs. 2,400 and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chaman passed an order dated the 17th of August, 1959, for the recovery of Rs. 2,400 from the plaintiff-petitioner. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 issued many notices to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2 400 and attached his im movable property and proceeded to recover the sum of Rs. 2,400. The plaintiff-petitioner served a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on defendant No. 1, through the Chief Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, of which copy was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta and Supervisor, Bazar Fund, Chaman on the 2nd of March 1960 and served on the 4th of March, 1960, calling upon them not to realise the sum of Rs. 2,400, under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, but to sue the plaintiff-petitioner in a Civil Court if defendant No. 1 was duly entitled to it. Despite this notice, the defendant No. 2, employee of defendant No. 1, illegally auctioned the petitioner's shop situated on the Mall Road, Chaman, in favour of defendant No. 3 on the 20th of August, 1960, for a sum of Rs. 2,100, and delivered its possession to him in the second week of September, 1960. Since defendant No. 2 had no power to sell the petitioner's immovable property, his act was ultra vires and the auction in favour of defendant No. 3 did not confer any title on defendant No. 3. The execution of the order of the defendant No. 2, dated the 17th of August, 1959, caused damages to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 2,400. Thus the cause of action arose to the plaintiff-petitioner on the 17th of August, 1959, when defendant No. 1 moved an application under sec tion 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation and subsequently on the 20th of August, 1960, when steps in execution of the order of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, dated the 17th of August, 1959, were being taken. The petitioner prayed for a decree that the action of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in selling the plaintiff- petitioner's shop No. 457/458, situate at Mall Road, Chaman and delivery of its possession to defendant No. 3 while acting under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation in realising the Bazar Fund, Chaman's dues, was ultra vires and no title in the shop passed to defendant No. 3 and that he be directed to deliver possession of the shop back to the petitioner. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the petitioner could not be given a decree for possession, as prayed for, he be awarded a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,400 as damages illegally caused to him. 2. The defendants resisted the suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 raised preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable against the defendants in view of section 93 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, 1910, nor under the Specific Relief Act, that the suit was misconceived and embraced inconsistent prayers, that the suit was bad for want of proper notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code ; and that the Extra Assistant Commis sioner, Chaman, had wrongly been impleaded as a party. As his acts were performed in his capacity as a Magistrate 1st Class, he could only be impleaded after serving a notice on the Govern ment. The suit was bad for non joinder of the Deputy Com missioner as a party and that the suit had not been properly valued. On merits, it was pleaded, that the piece of land was leased to the petitioner by the defendant for a period of five years at Rs. 4,700 per annum with effect from the 1st of April, 1947 and it was denied that there was any obligation on the defendant to supply sullage water or that there was an option in the plaintiff-petitioner to avoid the contract, as alleged by him. The rest of Para. No. 1 was denied. Para. No. 2 of the plaint was admitted. Para. No. 3 was denied and it was alleged that the petitioner having harvested good crops for two years had made a frivolous application for some remission in the lease money, whereon the Assistant Political Agent, Quetta-Pishin, had made enquiries on the spot and rejected it. The plaintiff-petitioner then applied for concellation of lease in 1951, which was accepted as a measure of favour to him. Paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 were denied and it was pleaded that the defendants were entitled to the lease money for the period upto the 31st of March 1950 as the petitioner remained in possession of it under the lease, and was as such bound to pay the lease money for that period. It was admitted that an appli cation under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation was put in on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner on default of pay ment of the balance by the petitioner and an order for its realiza tion was passed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner on the 17th of August, 1959. It was also admitted that a notice dated the 2nd of March, 1960, was received, but it was contended that the notice did not cover the reliefs sought in the suit and as such the suit had been filed without proper notice, It was also admitted that the shop of the petitioner was auctioned to effect recovery of the amounts due from the plaintiff-petitioner on the 30th of August, 1950, in favour of defendant No. 3, for Rs. 2,100 ; but it was contended that auction was perfectly legal. It may be men tioned here that it is common ground between the parties that the land under the shop was the property of the Government and that the superstructure was owned by the petitioner. The order of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, dated the 13th of August, 1960, had only directed the sale of the superstructure. Defendant No. 3 also contested the suit and pleaded that the shop had been validly auctioned in his favour and its possession was handed over to him vide order of defendant No. 2, dated the 3rd of September, 1960, and the suit did not lie against him. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Is the suit not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 93 of the Bazars Regulation of 1910 or otherwise ? (2) Is the suit not maintainable under Specific Relief Act ?, (3) Is the suit misconceived and does it embrace inconsistent prayers ? (4) Is the suit bad for want of proper notice under section 80, C. P. C. ? (5) Is the defendant No. 2 impleaded wrongly for the reasons stated in para. (2) of legal objections ? (6) Is the suit bad for non joinder of Deputy Commissioner ? (7) Is the suit improperly valued and insufficiently stamped ? (8) Was there any condition in the lease deed regarding viodability of the contract on the part of the plaintiff, if defendant did not supply sullage water regularly for the garden? If yes, was there any shortage of supply in the year in question on the part of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 ? (9) How much was recovered from the plaintiff towards lease money for the year and to what extent was it justified ? (10) Was auctioning of plaintiff's shop to the defendant No. 3 illegal and wrongful ? . (11) Is defendant No. 3 wrongly joined? If yes, what effect ? (12) What should the decree be ? That trial Court decided issues Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and the rest against him with the result that the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. He came to the conclusion that both the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner were barred by Article 9 8 of the Basic Democracies Order and agreed with the trial Court that the suit was not maintainable. He also agreed with the trial Court's findings on issues Nos. 8 and 9. He how ever, differed with the trial Court on issues Nos. 5 and 10 and decided them in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. In view of his findings on issues Nos. 1 and 8 he agreed that the suit had rightly been dismissed and the appeal with costs. Then the plaintiff-petitioner filed a second appeal in this Court, which now, by operation of law, has to be treated as a revision. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner challenges the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos. 8 and 9. He strenously urged that a written agreement was executed between the parties, which was in the possession of defendant No. 1 and had been deliberately withheld. The Courts below had found that no such written agreement had been executed. In view of the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we sent for the relevant file, which was produced before us at short notice. We found in this file, an application dated the 12th of August, 1946, addressed to the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chaman, filed by the petitioner requesting for the lease of the land and sullage water at annual lease of Rs. 3,000. The petitioner agreed to offer Rs. 4,700 per annum for the lease and the application in original was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta-Pishin, who accepted the offer in terms of his letter dated the 8th of January, 1947, which is Exh. C. 2. It was expressly stated in Exh. C. 2., that there would be no remission of the lease money in any case. The whole file was examined by us and we did not find any written agreement executed between the parties. No reference to a written agreement existed in the notings. The file was also shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner and he conceded that he could find no reference to the written agreement. We asked him if he could produce a copy of the agreement alleged to have been executed but he expressed his inability to do so. We agree with the Courts below that no written agreement was executed between the parties and that in fact the true position is that the application of the plaintiff-petitioner dated the 12th of August, 1946 was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, at his offer of Rs. 4,700 per annum in terms of Exh. C. 2. 5. The petitioner applied for lease of land along with sullage water. In the application, the quantity of water to be supplied was not mentioned and in the nature of things the quantity has to be a variable amount, as it was sullage water of the town, which would normally vary from time to time according to the season and the use of water by the inhabitants of Chaman. The plaintiff petitioner admitted in his statement that there was no quantity of water stipulated. He also admitted that drain water was not supplied to anyone else during the period of his lease. In the circumstances, it is proved that whatever drain water was avail able was supplied to the plaintiff-petitioner and this is what was stipulated and all that the defendants had to do. It was argued before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the supply of water was stopped. This contention is groundless, because the water could have diminished, but could not have ceased to be supplied. It may be that there was shortage of water in March, 1949, and for sometime thereafter, but this was due to natural causes, which caused shortage of supply of water to the town of Chaman and were beyond the control of the defendants. The plaintiff-petitioner had a right to the supply of whatever sullage water was available and this was not denied to him. There was thus no breach of agreement on the part of the Bazar Fund, Chaman. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the plaintiff-petitioner had a right to terminate the lease in view of the shortage or non-supply of water. No such agreement has been proved by the plaintiff-petitioner and no such term can be inferred from his application or the order of acceptance of his application. The lease was for a period of five years and the authorities were not bound to cancel the lease on the plaintiff petitioner serving them with a notice, which has been brought on the record as Exh. C. 3. If the authorities cancelled the lease, it was an act of grace on their part and not because a right to cancel the lease existed in the plaintiff-petitioner. The Courts below were right in finding issue No 8 against the plaintiff-petitioner. 7. In the view of the above, we must also agree with the Courts below with regard to their findings on issue No. 9. The plaintiff-petitioner had remained in possession of the land up to the 31st of March, 1950, and had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,700 to the Bazar Fund under the lease, out of which he had only paid Rs. 2,300 and the balance of Rs. 2,400 still remained due from him. This amount he failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. 8. The main question that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner and falls for determination is whether for the sum due to the Bazar Fund of Chaman as rent from the plaintiff, his im-movable property could be attached and sold. The brief facts bearing on this question are that on the failure of the plaintiff- petitioner to pay the balance of Rs. 3,400, an application was filed on the 10th of December, 1958 on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner against the plaintiff-petitioner in the Court of Extra Assistant Commissioner and Magistrate 1st Class, Chaman, under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, 1910, praying that the sum of Rs. 3,400 may be recovered from the petitioner by any or all of the methods prescribed under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regula tion. On this, notice was issued to the plaintiff and proceedings for realization of the amount were started against him. He refused to pay the amount on the excuse that he had not received sullage water for the garden: Subsequently, however, he paid ~a sum of Rs. 1,000 on the 22nd of January, 1959, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,400. He was again summoned with a view to realize the amount from him, but he applied to the District Magistrate of Quetta on the 8th of April, 1959, for remission of the out standing amount and his application having been dismissed, he was again summoned on the 17th of August, 1959. He failed to show-cause, or produce further evidence and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chaman, ordered on that day that the sum of Rs. 2,400 should be recovered from him in lump-sum and in case recovery could not be effected, his property should be attached. The Tehsildar was asked to effect the recovery of the amount from the plaintiff-petitioner. As the amount remained outstanding and could not be recovered, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, issued a notice on the 22nd July 1960 to the plaintiff-petitioner to show if he had any objection to the realization of the amount, warning him that in case he did not pay the amount it would be realized from his property. The plaintiff relied on writing that his financial condition was poor and that he was unable to pay and had also filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, in which he had prayed for an injunction. The E. A. C., came to the conclusion on 13th August 1960 that he was deliberately avoiding to pay the arrears of the Bazar Fund and, therefore, ordered under section 97 of the Bazar Regulation, that superstructure of shop bearing Khasra No. 458 should be attached and sold as the amount remained unpaid by the plaintiff. Auction of the superstructure commenced on the 20th of August, 1960, and went on to the 22nd, when respondent No. 3 gave the highest bid of Rs. 2,100 for the superstructure. The Political Agent accorded his approval to this auction in favour of defendant No. 3 who was put in possession of the shop with the assistance of the police. This suit was instituted on the 7th of September, 1960. 9. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner before the lower appellate Court that the rent due to the Bazar Fund could not be realized under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, 1910, and further that auction of the super structure of the shop could not anyhow be ordered as it was immovable property. The learned District Judge, repelled the first contention but accepted the second. He however, held that the act was done bona fide and that the suit was not maintainable. 10. Two important questions arise for decision in this case. The first is whether the rent due to the Bazar Fund could be realised under section 97 of the Baluchistan Regulation, 1910, which provides as under :- "Any arrear of any tax, rent, fee or other money claimable by or on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner may, in addition to any manner provided under section 88 be recovered on application to a Magistrate having jurisdiction within the limits of the Bazar by the distress and sale of any immovable property within the limits belonging to the person from whom the money is claimable, and if payable by the owner in respect of any property, movable or immovable, such arrear shall be a charge on the property." It will be observed that this section specifically provides for recovery of rent claimable by or on behalf of the Deputy Com missioner on an application made by the Deputy Commissioner to a Magistrate. The money was due to the Bazar Fund under clause (d) of section 24 of the Regulation as being proceeds of immovable property administered for the benefit of the Bazar Fund, the management of which was entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner by the Regulation. It may be mentioned that subsection (2) of section 24 provides that the property referred to in clause (d) includes land or other property acquired by the Deputy Commissioner for local public purposes or under com petent authority constituted the property of the Bazar Fund. There is no dispute that the land leased to the plaintiff-petitioner was property vested in the Bazar Fund. Therefore, the rent due for the land leased to the plaintiff-petitioner was clearly claimable by or on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and could be recovered on an application made to a Magistrate under section 97 of the Bluchistan Bazars Regulation. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, however, contends that as it was rent due on account of a contract of lease in respect of which no bye-law has been made, the sum could not be recovered under section 97 and that a civil suit was only competent. In support of his contention he relies on the Quetta Municipality v. Abdul Karim Burt (P L D 1954 Dal. 50). This was a case under the Baluchistan Municipal Act. The learned Judicial Commissioner held that the power conferred by section 176 (a) of the Act with regard to the recovery of rent due to the Municipality must be confined to such rents accruing to them within the purview of the Municipal Law only, i.e., if the Municipality has framed bye-laws governing the question of rents of markets to recover arrears of rent. Where the Municipality rents out and charges rent on other property which is not speci fically mentioned in the Municipal Law, or to govern which bye laws have not been framed or cannot be framed, the Committee cannot make use of subsection (a) of section 176 as a mean of recovery, and the position of the Municipality is exactly equiva lent to that of the landlord and tenant and it will be for a Civil Court to adjudicate upon any claim from arrears of rent. This view was arrived at although section 176 of the Municipal Act provided that any arrears of any tax, rent or fee or other money claimable by or on behalf of the Committee may in addition to any manner provided by rule be recovered after due service of notice of demand on an application to a Magistrate. With all respect to the learned Judicial Commissioner it is difficult to accept his conclusion, because realization of rent by an appli cation to a Magistrate is specifically provided in the section and there are no limiting words. There are no words in the section such as rent due under the Act or Bye-laws. We have found that the word "rent" was introduced in the Punjab Municipal Act in 1932 and this addition appears to be deliberate. In our view, therefore, rent recoverable by a Municipality could be recovered by an application to Magistrate under section 176 (a) of the Quetta Municipal Act. In view of the clear provision of section 97 read with section 24 (i) (d) of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation it is clear that rent claimable by or on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner could be recovered on an application to a Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred E to other cases under the Punjab Municipal Act, but these are not relevant, because they were decided before the amendment in 1932, when the word "rent" was introduced in the section. We, there fore, agree with the lower appellate Court that the rent due from the plaintiff petitioner could be recovered by an application made to a Magistrate. 11. The second objection may now be considered, namely, that the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, 1910, having been repealed, the property could not be attached and sold under section 97 and, secondly, that the superstructure could not anyhow be attached and auctioned as it was immovable property. The, Baluchistan Bazars Regulation was repealed by subsection (1) of section 4 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance X of 1960, read with its First Schedule with effect from the 1st of May, 1960, as it came into force from that day by Notification. No. SOH (LI)-4/60 dated the 1st of May, 1960, issued by the Governor of West Pakistan, in exercise of powers conferred on him by subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance. Under subsection (2) of section 4 by the repeal, any appointment, rule, regulation or bye-law made; notification, order, or notice issued, tax imposed or assessed, contract entered into, suit instituted, or action taken under such enactment shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance and the rules, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, imposed or assessed entered into, instituted or taken under this Ordinance. The effect of this provision is that the proceeding taken under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation are to be deemed as taken under this Ordinance. The proceedings could, therefore, be continued under the Ordinance. Subsection (2) of section 38 of the Ordinance further provides that all arrears of taxes, rates, tolls and fees and "other moneys" claimable by Municipal Committee under this Ordinance, shall be recoverable as a public demand or as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the rent due to the Bazar Fund "is other money" claimable, which can be recovered as public demand or as arrears of land revenue. The provisions relating to realization of amounts due as arrears of land revenue are provided in Chapter VI of the Baluchistan Land Revenue Act. Its section 77 provides that if the arrear cannot be recovered by- any of the processes hereinbefore provided or if the Revenue Commissioner in Baluchistan consider the enforcement of any of these processes to be inexpedient, the Collector may where the defaulter owns any other estate o holding, or any other immovable property, proceed under the provisions of this Act against that property, as if it were the land in respect of which the arrear is due. Section 79 provides for proclamation of sale of immovable property, to issue on the receipt of sanction of the Revenue Commissioner, Baluchistan for the sale. Under section 80, no Revenue Officer shall be answerable for an error, mis-statement or omission in any proclamation unless the same had been committed or made dishonestly. Under section 90, every sale of immovable property shall be reported by the Collector to the Revenue Commissioner and under section 91, an application may be made within thirty days to the Revenue Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or con ducting it, but the sale shall not be set aside on that ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity or mistake. Section 158 (1) of the Act, further provides that a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which a Revenue Officer is empowered by the Act to dispose of or take cognizance, or the manner in which the Revenue Officer exercised any power vested in him by the Act, and under its subsection (2) that a particular Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over (xiv) any claim with or arising out of the collection by the Government, or the enforcement by the Govern ment of any process for the recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and (xv) any claim to set aside on any ground other than fraud, a sale for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue of any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. In view of the above provisions, the sum due from the plaintiff-petitioner could be recovered as arrears of land revenue and since he had failed to pay the amount, his immovable property could be attached and sold under the above provisions of the Baluchistan Land Revenue Act. The only defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it does not appear that the previous sanction of the Revenue Commissioner was obtained for the sale. The defect is, however, covered by section 158 (2) (xiv) and (xv) of the Land Revenue Law of Baluchistan and it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that is not open to him to challenge the sale in a Civil Court. We thus hold that it is not open to him to challenge the validity of the sale of the super-structure of the house. In this view of the matter, the proceedings taken against the plaintiff-petitioner for recovery of the dues of the Bazar Fund, Chaman are in fact valid, as they are to be deemed to be proceedings taken and continued under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and the sale of the superstructure of the shop cannot be challenged in a Civil Court. 12. The above conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the revision petition, but it is necessary to deal with a contention raised' by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, namely that the Town Committee of Chuman is a successor of the Bazars Fund, Chaman and the amount due to it could be realised under the provisions of the Basic Democracies Order and the action of the E. A. C., in selling the property was protected under Article 98 of the Basic Democracies Order, as having been taken in good faith. The learned counsel placed before us a notification dated the 22nd of February, 1960, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, as controlling authority, under Article 5 of the Basic Democracies Order, notifying the Chaman Town Committee as successor of the Bazar Fund to work as Town Committee under the Basic Democracies Order. We have been told that the Town Committee of Chaman was constituted by the Commissioner on the 19th of November, 1959. It has been argued that this Town Committee has succeeded to the Bazar Fund under section 5 of the Basic Democracies Order (hereinafter called the Order). This article provides that a Local Council established under this Order shall be the successor of such Local Body or bodies established under any of the repealed enactments, as the controlling authority, may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and the extent to which or the purpose or purposes for which a Council shall be such successor may also be specified in such notification. The words "any of the repealed enactments" obviously refer to the enactments repealed in Article 4 (1) of the Order. The sub article provides that on coming into force of the Order in any area, the enactments mentioned in the First Schedule, shall, if and in so far as applicable to that area, stand repealed. The Baluchistan Bazar Regulation is not mentioned in the First Schedule, and consequently, the Town Committee of Chaman, which was constituted under the Order, could not be declared a successor under Article 5 of the Order. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Ahmed contended that the words "any of the repealed enactments" should not be confined to the enactments mentioned in the First Schedule and repealed by Article 4 (1), but should be read as including enactments repealed by other Acts also, namely, the Municipal Administration Ordinance. We cannot accept this contention, as the use of word "the" before the words "repealed enactments" clearly indicates that the reference is to the enactments referred to in Article 4 (1) of the Order it mentioned in the First Schedule to the Order. We were also referred to notification No. S.C.(BD)/25-19/60, dated the 29th of July, 1960, issued by the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred on him by clause (2) of Article 31 of the Basic Democracies Order directing that the provisions of section 38 (and others) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all Town Committees constituted under the said Order. As in our view, the Town Committee of Chaman is not the successor of the Bazar Fund, this notification cannot be availed of by the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the Town Committee has not became a successor of the Bazar Fund, the realization proceedings on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and pending before the Magistrate con tinued under subsection (2) of section 4 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance. But the provisions of the Basic Democracies Order, namely, Article 65 (2), for the realization of the sums due to the Town Committee; as arrears of land revenue and Article 98 relating to protection in respect of action taken in good faith, are not available to the respondents. The protection afforded by section 158 of the Land Revenue Law of Baluchistan is available, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 13. Even if the application and proceedings under section 97 of the Bazar Regulation were irregular, section 93 of the Regulation covered it and no suit lay, but it is doubtful if the protection afforded by section 93 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation can be availed of because the enactment had been repealed by the Municipal Administration Ordinance from the 1st of May, 1960, and the attachment and sale of the property of the plaintiff-petitioner took place thereafter, under an order made on the 13th of August, 1960. It has already been held that Article 98 of the Basic Democracies Order does not afford any protection, as it is not applicable to the case. Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, however, ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. We, therefore, agree with the lower appellate Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, but on different grounds. 14. An objection was taken to the Deputy Commissioner not being made a party to the suit. Since the proceedings were taken at his instance and he was managing the fund, he was at least a proper party, if not a necessary party. It is not necessary to decide whether he was also a necessary party, when the Province of West Pakistan, in whom the Bazar Fund vested after integration, had been made a party. 15. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that a proper notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, not having been served the suit is not competent. The precise objection is that the reliefs claimed in the suit were not mentioned in it. We find from the record that a notice was served by the plaintiff-petitioner on respondent No. 1, through its Chief Secretary, on the 2nd of March, 1960, and a copy of the notice was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, as Manager of the Bazar Fund, Chaman. In this notice, what was stated was H that the Government should proceed by a regular suit for realisa tion of Rs. 2,400 against the plaintiff-petitioner, if they had a claim against him and not under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazar Regulation and that if proceedings to realise the fund were continued under section 97 of the Bazar Regulation, the action would be mala fide and ultra vires, for which the plaintiff would sue for damages. The plaintiff in his original plaint sought two reliefs, namely, that the action of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in selling the plaintiff's shop in realizing the contractual sum was ultra vires and no title passed to defendant No. 3 and, secondly prayed for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from selling the shop. This suit was filed before the sale took place and before the impugned order, by which the sale took place, was made. In the amended plaint filed on the 8th of March, 1961, the relief relating to injunction was deleted and in the alternative, a prayer for a decree for Rs. 2,400 as damages was substituted. Our attention has been drawn to Chandulal Vadilal v. Government of the Province of Bombay (A I R 1943 Bom. 138), which holds that to state a future cause of action in the notice is not a compliance with section 80, but where a cause of action exists of which notice is given the notice is not rendered bad, because it refers to a possible further claim which may arise before a suit can be brought. Though the notice is, in our view, defective in form, we do not consider that this is a case in which no notice under, section 80, C. P. C. has been given. The-cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff-petitioner and he had given a notice to defendant No. 1 and the Deputy Commis sioner of damages also. In that notice, the reliefs to be claiming were substantially set out. 16. No other question has been raised before us. In view' of our conclusion that the sum due to the Bazar Fund as rent of the land leased to the plaintiff-petitioner, could be realised by an application to a Magistrate under section 97 of the Baluchistan Bazars Regulation, which proceedings were protected under section 93 of the Regulation and were to be deemed to be proceed ings under the Municipal Administration Ordinance under sub section (2) of section 4, and the sum due could be realised a, arrears of land revenue under subsection (2) of section 38 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, the act of attachment and sale of the superstructure of the shop owned by the plaintiff petitioner is not illegal, ultra vires or opposed to law. The sale and the auction cannot be challenged before a Civil Court under section 158 of the Baluchistan Land Revenue Law and the civil suit is not maintainable. We, therefore, see no force in this revision petition and dismiss it with costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.