SYED SAJJAD ALI SHAH Versus WASIM GUL
Haji Fazal Muhammad (since dead) and Wasim Gul respondent in the revision petition in hand had instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Charsadda against Syed Sajjad Ali Shah and others, petitioners herein, for a declaration that the former were lessees of the suit land till the crop of `Kharif 1988 and they could not be ejected there from against the provisions of the lease deed before the expiry of the period of lease. The former had also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the latter from ejecting the former. The defendants of the suit, who are petitioners herein, had inter alia taken up a preliminary objection to the effect that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. The learned trial Judge framed as many as 9 issues from the pleadings of the parties, wherein issue No.5 is with regard to the jurisdiction of that Coup to entertain the suit. Upon an oral request by counsel for the parties that issue No.5 regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court needed adjudication before recording evidence in the case whereupon the learned Civil Judge heard arguments on the aforesaid issue and by order dated 3-9-1979 held that Civil Court had jurisdiction and carried out further proceedings in the matter and after recording evidence as produced by the parties decided other issues in favour of the plaintiffs of the suit and decreed their suit by judgment dated 10-10-1983. The petitioners herein, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment filed an appeal which was heard by Additional District Judge, Charsadda. The learned appellate Court did not give any finding on issue No.5 and upheld the findings of the learned trial Judge on other issues and dismissed the appeal by judgment, dated 10-7-1984. The defendants of the suit still feeling aggrieved came up to this Court with the petition in hand.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners only challenged the finding of the learned lower Court on issue No.5. It was contended by him that the plaintiffs of the suit had sought a declaration that they were lessees of the suit land under the defendants of the suit who are petitioners herein and essentially the matter in dispute between the parties was that of tenant and landlord and since the subject matter of the suit was agricultural land, so under clause (f) of the Second Group to subsection (3) of section 49 of the N.W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the suit was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court.
3. The perusal of the contents-of the plaint of the respondent will clearly indicate that he and late Haji Fazal Muhammad had sought a declaration in their suit that they were lessees of the suit land under the petitioners herein and were not liable to ejectment before `Kharif 1998. As such, the matter in dispute between both the parties was the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Since the jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined by the averments made in the plaint, and the plaint clearly disclosed that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the lease deed and its terms and conditions, hence the Court competent to adjudicate upon the suit was a Revenue Court under the provisions of section 49 of the Act as already specified.
4. No doubt, under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In other words wherever the object of proceedings is the - enforcement of civil rights, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit independently of any Statute unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It shall be seen that every dispute of a civil nature cannot create a civil right and a civil remedy. Although in the present suit the dispute between the parties was about the terms and conditions of a lease deed with regard to agricultural land, yet it did not create a civil right because the matter in dispute is essentially that of a tenant and landlord of agricultural land. The adjudication of such a dispute is to be by a Revenue Court under section 49 of the Act. Hence there was an express bar for the Civil Court to entertain the said dispute as laid down in section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters pertaining to rent and tenancy rights in agricultural land. This is because Revenue authorities are better acquainted with such matters.
5. The suit of Haji Fazal Muhammad deceased and Wasim Gul respondent herein was entertainable only by a Revenue Court and it was not regarding a dispute of a civil nature within the purview of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit as it was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court.
6. The finding of the learned Civil Judge on issue No.5 is, therefore, set aside and the issue is decided in the negative. In view of the aforesaid finding on issue No.5, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments of both the learned lower Courts are set aside. The plaintiff shall be returned to the plaintiffs of the suit for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
AA./1256/P Revision accepted.