1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 01st of April, 2013, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner affirmed the order dated 10th of December, 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Kasur.
2. The facts in precision necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming therein that he is owner in possession of the suit property which was purchased in the auction proceedings and the defendants/petitioner have no right or interest in the same. The petitioner being one of defendant entered appearance and submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) for rejection of plaint. The application was resisted by respondent No.1 and the same was resultantly dismissed on 10th of December, 2011. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved from the said order filed revision petition in terms of Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), however the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01st of April, 2013 by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur being barred by time, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was not competent before the Civil Court as the matter in issue arose from the proceedings conducted under The Punjab Privatization Board Act, 2010. He added that the Civil Court was not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 32 of the said Act. Learned counsel contended that the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint was wrongly dismissed and the learned revisional court has failed to exercise its lawful jurisdiction and dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation. He maintained that revisional court was bound to exercise the jurisdiction in terms of Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) when once it has come in the record that the Civil Court has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 defended the orders passed by the courts below. He submitted that the Civil Court was competent to adjudicate the suit in the light of provisions contained in Section 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908). Learned counsel argued that the revision petition was barred by time and it was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides and also perused the record with their assistance.
6. The instant petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 04th of June, 2013 on the sole ground that whether in terms of Section 32 of The Punjab Privatization Board Act (IV of 2010) (hereinafter referred as “The Act, 2010”), the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction and the matter in issue is exclusively triable by High Court. Before dilating upon the impact of Section 32 of Act ibid, it is necessary to have a glance on the resume of facts. The respondent No.1 purchased 33 Kanal 08 Marla of land from Khasra No.2808 alongwith old banglow and quarters of village Katlohi Tehsil and District Kasur in an auction proceedings held by the Punjab Privatization Board in pursuance to which rights were transferred to respondent No.1 by way of sale deed No.4846 dated 13th of June, 2005. The respondent No.1 started claiming the proprietary rights in the property bearing Khasra No.115 measuring 23 Kanal 12 Marla situated in Mauza Gaddoke Tehsil and District Kasur which is adjacent to the property purchased by him in open auction, being part of said property. Without commenting upon the right of respondent No.1 qua suit property, it is observed that at present this Court is to see as to whether the Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7. There is no cavil that the alleged right of respondent No.1 hinges upon the purchase of property which was auctioned by the Punjab Privatization Board in pursuance to the provisions of “The Act, 2010”. The said Act was promulgated in order to carry out a competitive, fair and transparent process for effecting privatization of the properties of the Government and to provide for an expeditious mechanism to resolve disputes relating to privatization and to provide for ancillary matters. In view of its special status adjudication of matters arising therefrom was given special preference and Chapter VII was specially inserted in “The Act, 2010” which deals with the matter of adjudication. Section 32 of “The Act, 2010” confers exclusive original civil and criminal jurisdiction to High Court to adjudicate and settle all matters related to arising from or under or in connection with the Act ibid.
Further information regarding jurisdiction of Constitutional Court to interfere with order of Revisional Court can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.