Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4526
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf)
Parties: AMANAT KHAN ETC. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4526. In this matter between AMANAT KHAN ETC. and PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf) DECISION DATE: 01-07-2026 TAGLINE: Whether Civil Court was vested with the jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the C.P.C. to entertain and try the suit challenging the consolidation scheme and the orders passed by the consolidation officers? CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 515-26 ============================================================ Form No.HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 Amanat Khan etc. Versus Province of Punjab through District Collector, Attock etc.
S.No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ proceeding Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel, where necessary
01.07.2026 Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate.
This application in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) assails the vires of judgment and decree dated 20th April, 20 26, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Attock, while allowing the appeal preferred by respondent s No.4 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as “ respondents”) set aside the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Attock. 2. Facts in brief forming background of this revision application are that the applicant s instituted a suit for declaration and injunction ; challenging the consolidation scheme and orders passed by the consolidation officers , averring therein that they are owners in possession of land measuring 20 Kanal 17 Marla, bearing Khasra No.1458, situated within the revenue estate of Chhoi Gariala, Tehsil and District Attock whereas respondents have no right, title, or interest whatsoever in the same. Suit was contested by the respondents, who filed written statement, wherein the assertions contained in the plaint were controverted whereas respondents No.7 to 10 & 11 to 14 have filed their respective conceding written statements. From the divergent pleadings of the parties , multiple issues were framed by the trial court. After framing of issues , evidence of both the Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -2-
sides was recorded and ultimately suit was decreed by way of judgment dated 7th July, 20 25. The respondents, being dissatisfied from the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Attock vide judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant s contended that though the applicants have led ample evidence in support of their claim and the trial court decreed their suit but learned Additional District Judge grossly misread it, while non - suiting them. It is contended with vehemence that in presence of overwhelming evidence , the applicant s were entitled for a decree of declaration but it has been withheld on extraneous reasons. Learned counsel argued that the appellate court proceeded to allow the appeal, while taking into consideration the ground which was never raised. Learned counsel contended that the impugned judgment is not tenable under the law and the same suffers from material irregularities. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. The cause of action agitated in the suit primarily emanated from the consolidation proceedings. The core issue which thus requires determination of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is that as to “whether Civil Court was vested with the jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the C.P.C. to entertain and try the suit challenging the consolidation scheme and the orders passed by the consolidation officers?” 6. Before dilating upon the moot point, canvassed before this Court, it would be apposite to first go through the legislative background. Section 9 of the C.P.C. bestows jurisdiction upon the civil court to try all suits of a civil nature except the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Civil courts are thus courts of Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -3-
ultimate jurisdiction. In other words, wherever there is question of enforcement of civil rights, a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit independently of any statute unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is trite law that even if there is any bar in the statute ousting the jurisdiction of civil court, it cannot operate as absolute. As already observed that by virtue of Section 9 of the C.P.C., the civil courts are granted general jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature. Civil courts are courts of ultimate jurisdiction and unless jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred, the final decision with regard to a civil right, duty or obligation, shall be that of the civil courts, where allegation of mala fide action has been made in the plaint, the civil court despite the bar placed on the relevant statue can examine acts on account of being tainted with mala fide, coram non judice or void. The civil court, however, cannot jump into the matter as a run of the mill case, if it is either expressly or impliedly barred unless remedy provided in the relevant statute is exhausted. 7. In order to consolidate and amend the law relating to consolidation of holdings in the Province of West Pakistan , the Punjab/Sindh/NWFP/Balochistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance”) was promulgated. Section 2 6 of the Ordinance places a bar upon the jurisdiction of Civil Court with regard to the matters enumerated therein , which reads as under :- “26. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, barred as regards matter arising under this Ordinance. No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which Government or the Board of Revenue or any officer is by th is Ordinance, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of.” It clearly manifests from the above that the Ordinance places an embargo upon the Civil Court to entertain any suit or application to obtain a decision or order in respect of any Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -4-
matter which Government or the Board of Revenue or any officer by the Ordinance, is empowered to determine, decide or dispose of. Reliance in this respect can be placed on MUHAMMAD AJMAL and others versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others (2008 SCMR 1431) and GUL MEER and others versus HASSAN BASRI and others (2007 SCMR 1266) . Even this Court in the case of MUHAMMAD ALI versus NAWAB DIN, etc. (PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 85) has also reiterated the same principles. 8. So far contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the consolidation proceedings were since tainted with fraud, so Civil Court was vested with the jurisdiction; suffice to observe that though prior to amendment in Section 9 of the C.P.C. there was a little space available for a plaintiff to institute a suit alleging fraud or malice qua the proceedings brought under challenge before the Civil Court but with the amendment introduced through Act No.XIV of 2018 the scope of Section 9 of the C.P.C. has been redefined, which now reads as under:- “Sec. 9. Courts to try all Civil suits unless barred. —The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred or for which a general or a special law is in force.” (Underlining supplied for emphasis) From bare perusal of above referred provision of law, it clearly manifests that by virtue of amendment, a radical and notable change was introduced by the legislature in the existing Section 9 of the C.P.C. whereby ouster clause was extended to the case for which a general or a special law is in force. 9. While adverting to the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the appellate court proceeded to allow the appeal, while taking into consideration the ground which was even never raised; suffice to observe that the Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -5-
determination of question of jurisdiction in the first instance is not only pivotal for the Court or Tribunal but obligatory as well under the law. A wade through the record reveals that in the light of objection taken by the respondents qua maintainability of suit, the trial court though framed issue No.6 but did not advert to it properly. Needless to reiterate that in the circumstances question of jurisdiction was most pivotal and it should have been decided by the trial court on priority as per mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the C.P.C. but it has not been done at all. This surely was the reason that learned Additional District Judge in its appellate jurisdiction attended the question of jurisdiction and after assigning valid reasons set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court being coram non judice . Guidance in this respect can be sought from ZAHID ZAMAN KHAN and others versus KHAN AFSAR and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 409) and Messrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED versus TAHIR EDIBLE OIL (PVT.) LTD. and others (2003 CLC 416). 10. It also evinces from the record that in the first instance the applicant s challenged the orders of the consolidation officer before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/Collector Consolidation, Attock through an appeal but it was dismissed vide order dated 13th March, 2020 with the observation that the applicants should approach the Civil Court. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/Collector Consolidation, Attock clearly amounts to abdicate the jurisdiction vested on him. The applicants instead of challenging the said order acted upon the same and approached the Civil Court mere ly on the basis of observation recorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/Collector Consolidation , which is not sufficient to equip the Civil Court with the jurisdiction which is otherwise not vested in it. Guidance to this effect can be sought from Civil Appeals Nos.2037 and 2038 Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -6-
of 2001 EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and others versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others (2007 SCMR 262). 11. This revision application is though arising out of divergent views of the courts below as the conclusion are contrary to each other but this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction is supposed to make comparative analysis of both the judgments in order to determine their validity on the touchstones of Section 115 of the C.P.C. It is cardinal principle of law that in the matter of giving preference to the judgments of lower courts, while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the preference and regard is always given to the findings of the appellate court, unless those are suffering with any legal infirmity or material irregularity. Reference in this respect, if needed can safely be made to the case of MUHAMMAD NAWAZ through L.Rs versus Haji MUHAMMAD BARAN KHAN through L.Rs. and others (2013 SCMR 1300) . Relevant extract from the same is reproduced herein below:- “12………We have also taken into consideration the judgment of the Appellate Court which is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the findings of the Appellate Court are to be preferred as it has been held by this Court in the case of Madan Gopal and others vs Maran Bepari and others (PLD 1969 SC 617) that “If the findings of fact reached by the first appellate Court is at variance with that of the trial Court, the former will ordinarily prevail, although it would not possess the same value or sanctity as a concurrent finding.” This view also finds support from the case of Muhammad Shafi and others vs. Sultan Mahmood and others (2010 SCMR 827)……..” The above view also finds support from the cases of AMJAD IKRAM versus Mst. ASIYA KAUSAR and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1) and MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ and another versus DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI EAST and another (2008 SCMR 398). 12. After having a comparative analysis of both the judgments, I am of the candid and firm view that the learned Additional District Judge, Attock has rightly interfered with the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Attock. The applicants have failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment, warranting Civil Revision No.515 of 2026 -7-
interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction so as to set at naught the impugned judgment. The instant application thus fails and is dismissed in limine.
(MIRZA VIQAS RAUF) JUDGE APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDGE
Shahbaz Ali*