2012 PLP 439 (MLD)

CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent. Along with the said suit an application under Order XXXIII, Rules 1, 2 of C.P.C. was also filed which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 22-2-2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned appellate court which also met with the same fate vide judgment dated 21-7-010. Hence, the instant civil revision

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, against law and facts on record. The respondent already filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of Mutation No.1166 dated 18-9-2003 before the Civil Court, Gujranwala which was dismissed on 22-5-2007. The respondent did not challenge the same before the competent court of law, so the same has attained finality. Both the courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that already a decree of civil court has attained finality in respect of Mutation No.1166 regarding the suit property. The petitioner has purchased the suit property and is owner in possession of the same since 18-9-2003. He has a good prima facie case in his favour because the Revenue authority has cancelled the mutation illegally and without jurisdiction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of petitioner. If the respondent is not restrained from interference in the possession of petitioner or to alienate the suit property, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and argued that both the courts below rightly dismissed the stay application of the petitioner/plaintiff. There are concurrent findings on the facts on record as learned courts below rightly given their verdicts in view of the confidence inspiring evidence produced by the respondent/defendant. The instant civil revision is liable to be dismissed.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Undeniably the respondent/defendant filed an application before the DOR, Gujranwala for cancellation of Mutation No.1166 dated 18-9-2003 levelling the allegation of fraud and fabrication which was allowed as ex parte and consequently the said mutation was cancelled vide order dated 20-5-2009. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application before the DOR, Gujranwala for setting aside above stated ex parte order which was dismissed. Afterwards the petitioner/plaintiff assailed the order of DOR before the civil court which is not the proper forum. It is well settled principle of law that when a remedy provided under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is exhausted, then jurisdiction of Civil Court is invoked. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. Resultantly, the instant civil revision being devoid of any substance is dismissed. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the matter within the period of three months positively from the receipt of certified copy of this order. M.W.A./M-904/L Revision dismissed.