1988 PLP 1397 (MLD)

The suit filed by the petitioner seeing decree, for perpetual injunction against the respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 16‑7‑1975. On appeal filed by the respondent against the said judgment and decree the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, by judgment and decree dated 6‑3‑1976 set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner and accepted the appeal of the respondent. This revision petition has been directed against the said judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha dated 6‑3‑1976.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred to entertain the suit are not based on law and this finding has resulted in failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the civil Court to entertain and try the said suit.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he being in possession of the property as son of occupancy tenant subject to payment of `batar' and the respondent was threatening to evict him forcibly. A prayer was made that the respondent be restrained from evicting the petitioner without due course of law. The suit was contested and status of the petitioner was denied. The learned trial Court passed the decree. The learned lower Appellate Court based its findings on Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with subsection (3) of section 77 as also M.L.R.115 to hold that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred. Under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, certain suits between the landlord and tenant regarding lease are exclusively triable by the Revenue Courts. In this case the respondent was not admitting the status of the petitioner as tenant over the land. In such a situation if the petitioner was being threatened with forcible dispossession he could certainly maintain the suit before a civil Court for a decree restraining the respondent from dispossessing him except in due course of law. Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, would not be applicable in such a situation. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, a remedy was available to the petitioner to file suit if he was dispossessed illegally and to the same effect is the provision of M.L.R.115. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the petitioner would not have any remedy against his forcible illegal dispossession unless he was actually dispossessed and only thereafter he could maintain the suit under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and M.L.R.115 before the Revenue Courts. 4. 1 am afraid the contention is wholly falicious. Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and M.L.R. 115 would be operative and remedies thereunder could be availed in case the petitioner was actually wrongfully dispossessed. Against his threatened forcible eviction the petitioner could certainly maintain a suit and the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said suit and pass a decree against the respondent which was rightly passed by the learned trial Court. The argument that before actual dispossession no remedy was available to the petitioner has no substance. The learned lower Appellate Court on erroneous view of law held that the suit was not maintainable before a civil Court, which resulted in failure to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated 6‑3‑1976 passed by the learned lower v Appellate Court is not sustainable. The revision petition succeeds. It is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree dated 6‑3‑1976 is set aside and that of the learned trial Court restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑829/L Revision accepted.