Find a Lawyer

Civil First Appeal No. 46 of 1973, decided on 29th Aril 1977.

‑‑‑ O. VII, rr. 10 & 11‑'Rejection of plaint‑Suit barred by provisions of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 [M. L. R. 64) and Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115] Inherent duty of Court to examine plaint and see whether it should be returned to plaintiff or rejected‑Such mandatory duty of Court may be exercised either before issuing summons to defendants or at any time with or without any application being made by defendant.‑[Duty of Court‑Plaint].

Sadhu Kathalla v. Dhirendra Nath Roy I L R 55 Cal. 590 ; Burmah Eastern Ltd v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others P L D 1967 Dacca 190 and Pakistan and another v. Devachand Muljimal P L D 1968 Kar. 107 ref.

Shaikh Mir Muhammad for Appellants.

Niazi A. Khaliq for Respondents Nos. 6 to 10.

Dates of hearing : 23rd August 1976 and 10th January 1971.

This first appeal is from the judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 27/73 by the Additional District Judge, Jacobabad, dated 16‑7‑73, by which the plaint in the suit fled by the appellants was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 (d) C. P. C. on the ground that the Court bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. Briefly the facts are that each of the appellants 1 to 4 owned one anna each, total four annas, in agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 246, 266, 267, 268 and 270 in Deh Qureshi, taluka Kandkot, District Jacobabad, while the remaining 12 annas share in the said survey numbers belonged to Mir Sher Muhammad Kban Bijrani. The said lauds were in joint possession of the respective owners and was being cultivated by them with the help of their hags, appellants 5 to 7, and the produce was being enjoyed by them according to their respective shares. The 11 annas share of Mir Bijarani was resumed under the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and in June 1961, the Assistant Land Commissioner, Kandkot, effected a partition of the survey numbers, with the result that surveys Nos. 267 and 268 in whole were given to appellants 1 to 4 and Nos 246, 266 and 270 in whole were taken over by the Land Commission, which later allotted these three survey numbers to respondents 6 to 10. Being aggrieved by the order of partition and allotment to the respondents, the appellants 1 to 4 preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue, but they were rejected. Therefore, on 17‑4‑197:1 the appellants filed F. C. Suit No. 27/73 in the Court of the District Judge, Jacobabad praying for declaration that they were sitting tenants of all the five survey numbers and, therefore, entitled to the grant of the survey numbers and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents including the official respondents 1 to 5 from ejecting them and from changing mutation in the record‑of‑rights in the names of the respondents 6 to 10. Alongwith the plaint, the appellants filed an application for interim injunction only against the Mukhtiarkar, Kandkot, respondent 5, not to mutate the survey numbers In dispute in the names of the respondents 6 to 10 and further not to dispossess them from the survey numbers under dispute. They obtained interim injunction against that respondent. Thereafter, the respondents 6 to 10 filed applications under Order XXXIX, rule 4 and section 151, C. P. C. praying the Court to vacate the interim injunction granted against the Mukhtiarkar, respondent 5. The learned District Judge heard the Advocates for the parties and by the impugned judgment dated 16‑7‑1973 not only did he vacate the interim injunction but also rejected the plaint of the suit under Order VII, rule 11 (d), C. P. C. on the ground that the suit was barred under para. graph 27 (1) of M. L. R. 64 (West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 and also paragraph 26 (1) of M. L. R. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972) and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. In the plaint, the appellants were challenging the title of the respon dents 6 to 10 to Survey Nos. 246, 266 and 270 which were resumed and allotted by the I. and Commission to them after the partition. Therefore, in effect, the appellants were calling in question the orders of the Land Com mission authorities made under M. L. R. 64. But, the jurisdiction of the Court was expressly barred under paragraph 27 of the said Regulation. Again, their prayer is that they, being allegedly sitting tenants of the said survey numbers, were entitled to the grant of the survey numbers. But, under paragraph 19 of M. L. R. 64 the grant of resumed land to tenants is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government, in wham the land had become vested, and if the appellants claimed a preferential right to the grant of the said survey numbers or, as alleged, were sitting tenants under paragraph 18 of M. L.. R. 115, their remedy is to approach the Government and no Court has jurisdiction to declare the alleged entitlement of the appellants. I am, therefore, in agreement with the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge holding that from the statement in the plaint, the Court had no jurisdic tion, and, therefore. the suit was hatred by law.

4. The submission of Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the rejection of the plaint had occasioned a failure of justice, in that the Court has rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. without notice to the appellants, while disposing of the application for injunction, which was the only application before the Court. This contention was considered by the trial Court and, in my opinion, rightly rejected. Even if no application is made by the opposite‑party for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. it is the inherent duty of the Court to examine the plaint and see whether it should be returned to the B plaintiff under rule 10 or be rejected under rule I1 of Order VII, C. P. C. This mandatory duty of the: Court may be exercised either before issuing summonses to the defendants or at any time with or without any application being made by the defendants. In this connection, reference may be made to Sadhu Kathalia v. Direndra Nath Roy (I L R 55 Cal. 590 ), Burmah Eastern Limited v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others (P L D 1967 Dacca 190) and Pakfstan and another v. Devachand Muljimal (P L D 1968 Kar. 107).

5. No other submission was advanced. I find no force in this appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs.

S. Q. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.