Allah Dino and Others (Applicant) VS H.E. Shaikh Zaid Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan/Dubai & Ors (Respondent)

9t1

I

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT

I<ARACHI 772

. Civli Revision No! / of 2021 AlleiLdino

2 ! I a.:1S - ii';ip7[ a4 .-_t

:ft--aU .

Ms L. Sakina . .\,,7r i ,'1.^'+,\u.

--.,, t/ 1;

Mst.Fatima. : i- 6 I"ls t . Sara .

't salen,a r:. q q,€, B Mst. i,r sadi.

A11 s'ols and dauglrters of late Dary:- Khan aduLt, Mus1im.

No.3 to 8 through their attorneY A-l-lahdino s/o DarYa Khan, r,/o VilJ.age Hafiz Channa tal.: Sakro D:-s trict Thatta ---- --- - -- -:- -APPi icaats 1 H.E Shaj-kh Zaid Bin Su]-tan Af,-Nahyar1 Ruler of Dubai, U.A.E since deceased rhrough his son successor H.E'Shaikh Saif Bin Zaid At-Nahyan, to be served through Hi.e a,ttorney, oamelY , Muha:r.rmad Shabbir ChoudhrY s/o Choudhry Muha:unad JarniL House No.57/1, Street-5 Kheyaban-e-Momin, Phase=V Dgj' Karach.i .

2 i,rovince of Sl-ndh, \{iGr: Through secretary, Board of Revenue sindh Secretariat, Karachi. )k -,| o o

3 Depuly CoInmissj-oner, ThaE La .

4 As s i!- tan1: eommissioner MirPur sakro Gha rH rJ 5 Mulihtiarkar I'tirpur Sakro. ----lespondents .

CIYIL ROVISIO N UIiDER S ECTION I 15 CPC

9tL

KARACHI

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT

Civil Revision Application No"L72of '- Al-Nahvan & ()thers)

Sultan 1aff"flaii* U Oif,",s vs H.E Sha^ikh Zaitl Bin Applicauts Allahdino & others tirrough Mr. Muhammad Avoub Chaniho, advocate

Respor-rdent No 1 H.E. Shaikh Zaid Bin Sultan Al-Nahvan throueh NI/s. SYed N{uhammad SaulaiRizvi & SYed Muhammad tr{ehdi, advocates

Respondents-1-3 Mr. Jan Muhammad Khuhr o' Adiitional Advocate General

1'l-03-2025 Date of healing 2s-03-2025 Date of Jutlgment rtc att O

* IIJDGMENT

o Application has been filed t Js. an Ali Junejo, J: This Civil Revision dated Se1'rtember 2' 2021 to challenge the Judgment and Decree and Decree")' (hereinafter termed the "Impugned Judgment Thatta (referred clelivered bv the IInd Additional District Judge' Appeal No' 37 of 2019' The to as the "Appellate Court") in Civil upheld the Order clated Appellate Court, througi.r this clecision' Fct-lruarv?3,zolg,issuedlrytlreSeniorCivilJudge,Tlratta (clcsignatecl as the "Trial Court") in F'C' Suit No' 180 of 20L8 submitted b1' Tire Trial Court's Order had reiected the plaint ot Order VII thc Applicants/Plaintiffs under the provisions

(CPC)' 1908'

,\; Rule 11 of the Code o1 6hril Procedure to be the legal heirs of The Applicants/Plahtiffs, claiming seeking the Darya l(han, instituted F'C' Suit No. 180 of 2018, iollorving reliefs:

.4. NO. 1 72 0F 2021 2

(a)a fucree for cancellation of enties No.41 in the year 2011 in the name of defendant NoJL in respect of suit property and restoing the same in tlrc nantes of heirs of late Darya Klun inclu din g the p I ain tifs.

@) A decree for possession partition of sun property to tlie pinintiff.

(c)A decree for mesne proft which haoe accrued on the property during the period.ftom 2013 'at the ratb of Rs' 1.5,00,000/- per year for urong full possession of suit land'

(d)A decree in thc swn of Rs' L0,00,00,000y' as clntqensntiott for tfu'damage of agiculturat land by making duck in su'it land.

(e)Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No'I, ftis agents and attorney from alienating thc possession of suit land to anybody else or making furtler clunge in [sic] lQ

I * TI

F

o, (fl To autard cost of stLit.

a J Sr and in tlp ends of E) Any othu relief ns deemed ft nnd proper jrLstice.

3.The case of the Applicants/Plaintiffs, as set out in'thc plair-rt, is that their predecessor, Darya Khan, was the owner of tl-re suit lancl. ln 1976,H.E. Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al'Nahyar-r allegeclly bccupied a portion of the land without their' consent anrl constructed a duck Pond a1ld a bungaiow' It is claimed that despite lepeated attemPts, government functionalies failed to restore possession to them. They further alleged that H'E' Shaikh Zayed initially agreed to Pay compensation but 'failed to

3tq

A, N0. 172 0F 2021 3

do so, and his successor, H.E. Shaikh Sai{ Bin Zayed Al- Nahyan, continued to enfoy the land without payment. Thev also alleged that fraudulent entries were made in the revenuc record in 2011 in favor of Defendant No. 1. Respondernt No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11. CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation' T}re iearned trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint,,holding that the suit was hopelessly time-barred.

4.Tire Applicants/Plaintiffs filed Civil Appeai No' 37 ol! 2019 before the Itnd Additional Dish'ict Judge, Thatta, which was dismissed vide the impugned Judgment and Decree dated September zrrd, 2021. The leamed Appellate Court upheld the trial Court's decision, finding no merit in the appeal.

5.The learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs, iras G tl c c gued that the kial court errecl in rejecting the plaint unclct llt T * der \4I Rule 1.1 CPC without properly assessing 'whefher

I

o ief could be granted even if the plainds contents were taken Si as true. He further argues that the lower courts wro4gly clisregarded the entire plaint, relied solely on the defense's versiorl and rendered findings that were Premature, paseless, and. unsupported by any eviclence. He asserts that tlle impugned orders are ultra vires, as they adjudichted 'the dispute on merits without recording evidence, , tirerebl' violating the principles of natural justice. He maintains that the hial court failed to consicier binding Supreme Court plecedents that invalidated land allotments in favor .of UAE nationals, which would have:directly affected Respondent No.l's claim. He also highiights tl,at the applicants had submitted, detailed n'ritten arguments supported bv apex court case law, nonc of which was 'considered, effectively depriving them of a fair

R.A. NO. 1?2 0F 202 I 4

hearing. He argues that the appellate court mechanically enclorsed the trial court's findings without incicpendently evaluating the applicants' grounds, thereby committing a serious irrogularity' He further contends that the couits below acted with bias in favor of Respondent No'1, failing to bonduct an impartial inqury based on revenue records and I instead rentlering an arbikary decision He asserts that the courts' finding-doubting the authenticity of a crucial letter basecl on incorrect aSsumptions regarcling the UAE ruler's death-was speculative and prejudicial. He maintains that had the case proceeded to trial, the applicants would have succeeded on merits as the rightful owners of the suit land' He concludes' that the summary rejection o{ the suit has resulted in a grave imiscarriage of iustice' ln light of the above, the leamedr counscl judgment prays that the Hon ble Court set aside the impugned ancl order, and remand the case for decision on merits aftel . (qording evidence, in the interest of justice' tA T * :lPer contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent No'1 6. lt:- lJ- it was c ds that the suit was clearll' barred by limitation' as l-n ore thun 30 years after the Applicants attainecl maioritl' Sr and over 40 years after the alleged occupation of the lanc-l' Hcr

2011 clo not argues that fraudulent entties in revenue records in of createa ftesh cause of action, as the Applicants were aware that thc the alleged occupation since 1976' He further asseitsl Rule 11 coults below rightly rejectecl the plaint under Order Vftr CPC, as it failed "to disclose a valid cause of action' He

r.naintains that the trial anc{ aopellate courts proPerly appliccl

thelan,anddidnotdecidetlrecaseonmeritsbutonlyiassessed whether the suit was maintainable' He contends that tlre

of Applicants' arguments regarding the alleged cancellation as no lancl allotments in favor of UAE nationals are irrelevant' period' such clairr was raised within the prescribed limitation

2 L

A. NO. 172 0F 2021 5

He also argues that the Applicants failed to produce any eviclence substantiating their claims, and their assertions are basecl on conjechrre rather than legal merit' Lastly, he mSintains that the courts below acted within their jurisdiction' and tl-iere The is no procedural or legal infirmitv in the impugned ordprs' learned counsel prays that the Hon'ble Court dismiss the Civil to Revision Application, as it lacks merit and is a futile attempt revive a time-barred and baseless claim'

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefuily perused the record, includir-rg the irrtpugncd Juclgment and Decree, the Order of the learned u'ial Coirrt' an'-l

the plaint filed by the Applicants/Plaintiffs' The primary question before this Court is whether the Iearned Courts Lrelow

were justified in reiecting the plaint under Order ViI 'Rule CPC. Older Mi Ruie 11 CPC provides for the rejection of a

Iaint in the following cases:

ttc U

IQ

* (a) Where it does not disclose a cause ot action'

F I

(r:

o hnd the

(b)Wrere the relief claimed is undervalued'

J

plaintiff fails to correct the valuation' l

(c)Where the plaint is written on PaPer insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisittr stamp PaPer.

(d)Where the suit aPPears from the statemertt in the plaint to be barred bY anY law.

It is a settled principle of law that while consi{ering an application under Ordcr VII Rule 11 CPC' the Court must I confine itseU to the avelments made in the plaint and the

.A. NO. 1?2 0F 2021'6

documents filed along with it. The Court cannot consider tire ciefense taken by the defendant. The plaint can be reiected orrly if the averments made theleiry even if taken to be true, do not ciisclose a cause of action or if the suit appears to be baned by any 1aw. In the present case, the leained trial Cour; reiected drc plaint primarily on the ground that it was barred by iimitatiou' The Trial Court noted that the alleged occupation of the Ianc'l occurred in 1976, and the suit was filed in 2018, more than 40 years 1ater. The Trial Court further noted that tire Applicants/Plaintiffs were minors n 1976 but had attained majority several years before filing the suit. The Tlial Court held that the suit was barrecl by the Law of Limitation' Tlre learned Appellate Court upheld the trial Court's decision' )- agreeing that the suit was barretl by limitation' The Appellate Court also noted that the title documents favored the Defendant (Respondent) No. l and that the transfer ha..1 occurred decades ago. After careful consideration, I arn of the view that the iearned Courts below have correctly applied the Hu- law and have rightly reiected the plaint under Order VII Rule * 11 CPC. The suit filed by the Applicants/Plaintiffs is essentially F 'n t! for declaration of their title to the suit land, possession' and o C.1

mesne profits. f,he alleged cause of action arose in 1976 when

S* \\

H.E. Shaikh Zayed'Btn Sultan Al-Nahyan allegedly occupietl the land. Even if the Applicants,/Plaintiffs were minors at that time, they attained majority several years before filing 'the suit' Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, establishes a six-ye4r limitation period for filing a suit seeking a declaration when no specific.time frame is provided elsewhere in the Scheciule' Additionally, Article 142 stipulates a twelve-year limitation periocl for suits concerning the possession of immov'able property, commencing from the date of dispossession rtr discontinuarce of possession. In the present case, the suit rtas institutecl more than 30 years after the Applicants/Plaintiffs

2rz

A. NO. 172 0F 2021 7

hacl reached the age o{ majority and over 40 years after the alleged occupation of the land. Consequently' the suit ;is evidently time-barred. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs, asserting that frauduient fresh entries made in the revenue records in 2011 constitutecl a were cause of action, is untenable. The Applicants/Piaintitfs already aware of the alleged occupation of the land sit)ce and atw flaudulent entries, if proven, woulcl not extend the The limitation period applicabie to the origtral cause of acUion' llower Courts have correctly determined that the plaint fiailed to ciisclose a valid cause of action and that the suit was barred !1' Order VII limitation. Therefore, the rejection of tire plaint under Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whs fully justified,

8.It has also been observed that since the Applicants' title tb was disputed and placed under doubt, they were requirec{ possession ancl seek a declaration of ownership before claiming permanent injunction' Without such a declaratory relief' tlrc

grant of these remedies is not tegally permissible' as es{ablishcd G HC c)

by the Apex Cor:rt of Pakistan irrProainca of the Punia'b zr' Ghazanfar Ati Shah (2077 SCMR 772), Sultan Mehmo,ocl Shah

F

t!. ' o. Din Mtthammail (2005 SCMR 7872), andMrthammad Aslam o a.Ferozi@LD20075c213).Furthermore.sincetheAPplicants also sought the cancellation of Entry No'41 in the record of

rights, it was mandatory for them to file a declaratory Section 53 suit against the Respondent No'1, as required under of the Land Revenue Act, '1967 ' Their failure to seek such tr

rentlets cleclaration in accordance with the statutory provisions their claim legallY deficient'

g. 115 of The scope of revisional iurisdiction under Sechon the Code of Civil Procedure is limited' The High Court can

3q

ft .A. NO. 172 0r 2021 B

interfere only if the subordinate court has: (a) exet'cised'a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) faiied to o(ercis€ a lits jurisdiction so vestecl; or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegatly or with material irregularitv The Applicants have not been able to demonstrate any such

jurisdictional' error or material irregularity' The lower Courts

sujr' 'rnt1 thev had the iurisdiction to entertain and decicle the exercised that jurisdiction in accordance with the lait" l'l-rc mcie of the lower fact that the Applicants disagree with the findings in levision' courts does not constitute a ground for interference wiri]9 It is a well-established principle that a revisional couft' the C'P'C'' generally exercising iurisdiction under Section 115 of of fact recc''rdcd hv does not interfere with concurrent findings r thetwo Courts below' This principle is based on the:prcmise

that an appellate court serves as the final authoriW 'for this r'ule is determining disputecl questions of fact' However' Hc cr not absolute. There are exceptional circumstanccs where tA t t ,!t', terventionunderSectionll5oftheC'P'C'mayber'r'arranted' uch as in cases of gross misreading or non-reading of Eviclenqe o the courts below have exercised their on record, or when s t regard' jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity' In this reliance maY be placecl on the dictum laid dou'ir by the

Supreme Court of Pakistan in|.aii Waidad o' Proainciql

'G oaernment Through Secretary Board of Reaerue Gotternment It is a of Balochistan, Quetta and otherc (2020 SCMR 2046) matterofrecordthattheApplicanthasrrotonlyfailedto clemonstrate gross misreading, non-reading of er''ii'ence' unable to illegality, or material irregularity but has also been estab lish any exceptional circumstances warla4ti4g by the intervention iri the concurrent findings of fact recordcd learned Courts below.

o t .4. N0. 172 o

10.For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merif in the present Civil Revision Application' The Applicants fave failed to establish any jurisdictional error or sigr'ificant irregularify in tlte impugned ' judgments ancl decler:s oi the lower Courts. The impugned Judgment dated 02-'09'2021' followed by Decree, passed b)' th" leamed District Judge' Thatta, are hereby affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs for these Proceedings

ra

J

,r-"

* n

H

o '"t l-, b.

Js.

rH€ H|GH COUa" oF stnt)x. il,tiA C€FTlf rtL Ir) Ct IF-ljE d0o!

bl (r/1 tigl A55 ,"Ildn rs/nt

FAR

n:etsrna R {CoPYrNGf

ON

/6- 6€ - 2-oR f

COPY APP:-IED

'OR cIo

E'IIMAIED ON

'TE5 c.!o I'IIMAIEb fEIS DEPO'TED O't coPY M.qDE READY/CESrtfltD on a'-

OI{

Jo

SUPPIIED '

'TAMP o-b

COPY DETIVERED ON -*

UR6€NI/N0RMA| fEE5: t'A lit:

(OPYYING FEES: P.ct-i: TO ?5.. -lto -ffi'"{ co tn PARit'JC FEES

TOTAL:

t-

JJ'I

GOMPANING 8Y/

offla€ as5ocldft (\.,-,r'1'lN/ (M uxArur ao snnrqncz;'

asslsriit; htGiiil..Ar i( UvlrNr.l . Uc