1997 PLP 420 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 16th May, 1992. This revision petition calls in question the judgment and order dated 12‑6‑1990 of the learned District Judge, Bannu vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner Mian Salim‑ur‑Rehman against the order dated 22‑7‑1989 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, whereby on the point of jurisdiction the plaint in his suit against the respondents Gul Qallir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan was returned under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation before the proper forum, was dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are that an evacuee shop and an evacuee house situate in village Boza Khel were transferred by the Notified Officer in. favour of Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan, respondents herein, on 8‑4‑1985 under Settlement Scheme No.I. On 3‑7‑1985 the petitioner brought a suit against the transferees and a few others for a declaration to the effect that he, alongwith the pro forma respondents, was the owner of the said property and its allotment in favour of Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan was illegal and, as such, liable to cancellation. A prayer for possession of the suit property on payment of Rs.3.00 as cost of the superstructure and recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs.3,000 from 1‑4‑1982 to 31‑3‑1985 was also made. It was alleged in the plaint that according to the custom prevailing in the area the site under the suit property was rented out by the forefathers of the petitioners to non‑Muslims who had raised the superstructure. That with the exodus of non Muslims the suit‑property reverted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner and Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan were inducted into it as tenants on payment of rent. That after the introduction of Settlement Scheme No.VII Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan made an attempt to get the suit house transferred in their favour but their attempt failed when on a reference made by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bannu, on the application of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner held in his order dated 21‑6‑1974 that the property in dispute may be allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner as the land under it belonged to him. That Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan respondents had become defaulters of rent and were also out to get the suit property allotted in their favour. Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan respondent as well as other concerned respondents namely, Board of Revenue. N.‑W.F.P. etc. refuted the petitioner's allegations and strenuously resisted the suit by contending, inter alia, that the suit property stood transferred to Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan and this Court had no ,jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. The parties were put to trial on as many as thirteen issues of which Issue No. l reads as follows:‑ "Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?"

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu who was seized of the case on 22‑7‑1989 decided the above issue against the petitioner and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper forum for the reason that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the express provisions of section 41 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner took the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Bannu but his appeal was dismissed on 12‑6‑1990 and hence this revision petition.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as Gul Qadir Khan and Gul Daraz Khan had got the suit property transferred in their favour in violation of the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 21‑6‑1974 through the back door and in any case the impugned orders were not sustainable as the learned lower Courts had abdicated jurisdiction in view of section 41 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Act, 1957 which having been repealed by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 was no more in the field. It was further contended that the petitioner had been left high and .dry on account of the omission of the learned lower Courts to indicate in their orders the forum before which the returned plaint was to be presented.

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of the concerned authorities whereby the status of the suit property was determined as evacuee had attained finality and, as such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was completely ousted. Reliance was placed on 1991 SCMR 1976 and 1991 MLD 2072 Lahore.

7. The dispute in this case relates to the determination of the status of a shop and a house which were included in the Survey Register in the year 1955, declared an evacuee property and transferred as such under Scheme No.I to Gul Qadir Khan and Mir Qadir Khan respondents by the competent Authority on 8‑4‑1985. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioner there is nothing on the record to show that the suit shop and house are not. evacuee property. The petitioner cannot draw any premium from the letter dated 21‑1‑1974 purportedly issued from the Office of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, N.‑W.F.P. for the reasons that it is nowhere mentioned therein that the suit property is not an evacuee property. It only states that the houses may be allotted to Mian Fazl‑ur‑Rehman, petitioner's father, and in case there are any instructions for disposal of the superstructure that may be adopted. The petitioner cannot revive an old, settled and closed case in regard to an evacuee property by invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court particularly when the order of allotment in question does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. As regards the contention that the learned lower Courts have not in their judgments highlighted the forum before which the petitioner should file the returned plaint it would suffice to say that the ball was set rolling by the petitioner, therefore, it is for him to find out the proper forum and the Courts are not obliged to give him legal advice. The decision of the learned lower Courts on the issue involved is unexceptionable, therefore, it is immateial whether the enactment cited in support thereof holds the field or not. A case for interference is thus not made out. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./2052/P Petition dismissed.