2002 PLP 1082 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 25th October; 2001. Instant civil revision is directed against the order, dated 14-6-1997 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore whereby he has returned the plaint of the plainriff/petitioner on the basis of an application moved by defendants/respondents under Order VII, rules 10- and 11, C.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 22 Kanals and 17 Marlas was declared to be an evacuee property and was allotted to one Muhammad Ismail and others in 1962-63. The said land was sold to Muhammad Azam in April, 1987. The present plaintiff/petitioner claims himself to have been coming a tenant over the suit-land from his forefathers and as such became tenant of Muhammad Azam by operation of law. On 28-4-1994, it is alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner that he was dispossessed from the suit-land illegally. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for restoration of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act on 21-7-1994. The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents by filing written statement on 6-10-1994. On 31-3-1997 the defendants/ respondents moved an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11, C.P.C. for rejecting/returning the plaint to the plaintiff/petitioner. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner by submitting reply on 7-4-1997. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties returned the plaint to the plaintiff/petitioner vide order, dated 14-6-1997. Feeling aggrieved of the said order the instant civil revision has been filed.

3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

4. Stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that the, trial Court has passed the said order relying upon a Notification bearing No.DSL-71-73/1007-LC(II). His contention is that said notification stands rescinded/superseded vide Notification No.1H-(III)-77-.947-CL/ 9-3-1977. He contends that as the very notification on the basis of which order, dated 14-6-1997 has been passed was not in existence at the relevant day, so the impugned order is not sustainable. He further argued that he has been dispossessed not by the owner but by the defendants/ respondents who claim themselves to be general attorney of the legal heirs of Muhammad Azam deceased. His contention is that had he been ejected by the admitted landlord, he could have agitated the matter before the Revenue Court. He contends that as he has been dispossessed by an unauthorized person so the only .remedy available to him is to knock at the door of Civil Court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon Murad Murad v. Mst. Moondan through her legal heirs and another 1988 MLD 1397 and Karam Khan v. Azizullah Khan and others PLD 1951 Pesh. 27.

5. Conversely, the stand of the learned counsel for the defendants/ respondents is that suit for restoration of possession before the Civil Court was not competent and the only recourse available to the plaintiff/ petitioner was to initiate proceedings under section 50 of the Tenancy Act read with section 77 Group-II(G) of Punjab Tenancy Act. He further contends that plaintiff/petitioner has been dispossessed by the defendant/ respondent. No. 1 being general attorney of the legal heirs of Muhammad Azam deceased.

6. The instant suit has been filed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff/petitioner asserting that he has been dispossessed by an unauthorized person. According to the plaintiff petitioner defendants/respondents have got no authority to dispossess him. His stand is that if at all he can only be dispossessed by the owner and that too in accordance with law.

7. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff/petitioner has been dispossessed by defendants without adopting due process of law and not even being owner/landlord of the plaintiff/petitioner, even then a procedure for restoration of such possession has been provided under Punjab Tenancy Act. According to section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act it has specifically been provided in sub-clause (a) that if a tenant has been dispossessed without his consent of his tenancy or any part thereof, otherwise than in execution of a decree or than in pursuance of an order under section 44 of section 45 he may, within one year from the date of his dispossession or ejectment, institute a suit for recovery of possession or occupancy, or of compensation or for both. Now this relief of wrongful dispossession or ejectment by a tenant can be sought by filing I suit as required under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act in a Revenue A Court as contemplated by section 77 Group-Il sub-clause (g) which 1A enjoins that suit shall be instituted in and determined by Revenue Courts I and no other Court shall take cognizance of any such dispute or matter with respect to which any suit might be instituted.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has relied upon 1988 MLD 1397 (supra), which relates to filing of suit for permanent injunction. Similarly PLD 1951 Pesh. 27 (supra) does not relate to a dispute, a subject-matter of the instant lis. Accordingly both the said authorities are not applicable to the facts in hand.

9. For what has been stated above, it is proved that the order, dated B 14-6-1997 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. As such civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./F-82/L Petition dismissed.