15. It is an established principle of law that the mutation proceedings
are of summary nature under the Revenue Act. A Civil Court is a court of
plenary jurisdiction and fraud can always be challenged before the Civil
Court because it requires to be proved through evidence of the parties.
Reliance is placed on Jan Muhammad through Mubarik Ali and others v.
Nazir Ahmad and others (2004 SCMR 612). It has also been held that rights of parties qua disputed property require determination after giving
them fair opportunity to adduce evidence. Factual controversies can only
be resolved by the Civil Court having plenary jurisdiction. Reliance in this
respect is placed upon Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and
others (2004 SCMR 604). The Revenue Courts have no power to correct
the longstanding entries in the revenue record in summary manner.
Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad Naeem v. Siraj-Ud-Din
and 6 others (2015 CLC 1084). It has been settled that the Civil Court
being the court of plenary jurisdiction, is competent to inquire into the
question, whether impugned mutation is attested by practicing fraud and
if it is so, it has the jurisdiction to declare the same to be void. The Civil
Court under Section 9 of C.P.C. can try all suits of civil nature except
those of which their jurisdiction is barred either expressly or by
necessary implication. In this context reliance can be placed on the case
reported as Muhammad Jameel Asghar v. The Improvement Trust
Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698) wherein it was held that where the
question of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction is raised, the
civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Reliance is also
placed on Hafiz Kalu and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2019
YLR 1523)
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
11548-15
2020 LHC 937
0 comments:
Post a Comment