Syed Muhammad Vs Khan Bahadur alias Fazal-ur-Rehman, etc

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COT]RT,

BANNU BENCH

(Judicial DePartment)

WP No.l87-8/2026

Syed Muhammad Vs

Khan Bahadur alias Fazal-ur-Rehman, etc'

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 01.06.2026

For petitioner(s): Mr, Rizwan Ullah Wazir Advocat )t***r<**

MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRID J.- This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the legality and validity ofthe judgment and order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the leamed Additional District Judge-V, Bannu, whereby the civil revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, and the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the leamed Civil Judge-XIII' Bannu'

returning the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC for its presentation before the Coun of competent jurisdiction' was

maintained.

2.Briefly stated, the facts ofthe case leading to the filing of (hereinafter this writ petition are that plaintiff, Syed Muhammad referred to as the petitioner), instituted a suit for declaration and Khan permanent mandatory injunction against defendants' Bahadur and others (hereinafter referred to as the respondents)'

contending that suit Plot No'1779, measuring 05 marlas' situated Nowshera' was in Jalozai Housing Scheme, Tehsil Pabbi' District allotment letter originally allotted to one Aman Ullah Khan vide dated 18.06.2013, and was subsequently purchased by the petitioner through a sale deed dated 13'08'2013' It was averred

(S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi @hafoor Zaman)

that respondent No.2, Nasib Noor' who is the brother of the petitioner and was jointly engaged in property business with respondent No.l , obtained the original documents of the plot from the petitioner and handed them over to respondent No' 1 to be used as security in arbitration proceedings arising out of a business dispute between respondents No.l and 2' Later on, both respondents claimed that the documents had gone missing, constraining the petitioner to issue a public notice in daily 'Ausaf dated 14.06.2020 regarding their loss' Subsequently' was it discovered that through arbitration proceedings dated 21'09'2020' 25.09.2020, ail 29.09.2020, respondents No'1 and 2 had transferred the suit plot to respondent No'3 without his ? knowledge, authority or consent' Consequently, the petitioner instituted the suit seeking declaration that the impugned acts were illegal, void ab initio, and ineffective upon his rights' along with cancellation of all subsequent transactions flowing therefrom'

3.Upon appearance, respondent No' 3 contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a written statement, wherein various legal and factual objections were raised' She also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 1l CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on matter of three grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the subject Housing the suit, namely the plot in question, is situated in Jalozai Scheme at Tehsil Pabbi, District Nowshera' Secondly' the

transaction relating to the transfer of the suit plot in favour of

respondent No' 3 also took place at Peshawar' Thirdly' respondent

No. 4, namely the Provincial Housing Authority GHA)' is

likewise located at Peshawar' On the basis of these facts' the

respondent No. 3 asserted that the Trial Court at Bannu lacked the plaint territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and' therefore' was liable to be rejected.

Contrarily, the petitioner filed a replication to the said

application and contended that the execution of sale deed dated

(Ghafoor Zaman) (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M uhammad Tariq Afridi

13.08.2013 and payment ofthe sale consideration had taken place at Dishict Bannu. It was further asserted that the arbitration proceedings culminating into decisions dated 2l-09.2020, 26.09.2020, and 29.09.2020, were also conducted and reduced into writing at District Bannu. The petitioner also contended that Aman Ullah Khan, the original owner / allottee with whom the sale deed dated 13.08.2013 was executed, is also a resident of District Bannu. On the strength of these facts, the petitioner contended that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of District Bannu and, therefore, the Trial Court at Bannu was well within its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the lis.

5.After hearing the arguments and examining the material available on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter' Consequently, vide order dated 28.10'2024, the plaint was retumed under ORDER VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a civil revision before the leamed Additional District Judge-V, Bannu; however, it was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2026.Hence, this petition'

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.Admittedly, the suit property is situated \nlalozai Housing Scheme at Tehsil Pabbi, District Nowshera' Section 16 CPC provides that suits for recovery of immovable property or determinationofanyrightorinterestthereinshallbeinstifutedin the Court within whose local territorial jurisdiction such property is situated. The scheme of the provision leaves no room for conffoversy that in matters concerning immovable property' jurisdiction is to be determined with reference to the situs of the property. A Court outside those territorial limits cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the basis of ancillary facts, when the (Ghafoor Zaman) (S.8.) llon'ble Mr. Justice Muhamm ad 'Iariq Afridi

principal controversy relates to recovery or determination of any right or interest in immovable propefty.

8.A conjoint reading of Sections 16 ail 20 CPC reveals that where the dispute pertains to any right or interest in immovable property, the special provision of Section 16 CPC prevails, and the suit is to be instituted before the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is situated. Section 20 CPC, being general in nature, cannot override the mandate of Section 16 CPC.

In the present case, the owner resides in District Peshawar, the suit property is situated in Jalozai Housing Scheme at Tehsil Pabbi, District Nowshera, and the office of the Provincial Housing Authority, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa situated at Peshawar maintains the official record pertaining to allotment and transfer of plots, including the disputed plot situated at Jalozai Housing Scheme. The alleged fraudulent act of defendant No.l, who is merely the petitioner's brother, resident of District Bannu, and not owner of the property, does not create any cause of action under Section 20(c) CPC nor confer jurisdiction upon the Court at Bannu. Since the controversy essentially relates to rights in immovable property, only the Court within whose teritorial limits the property is situated has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

g. Leamed counsel for the petitioner laid considerable emphasis upon the alleged execution of the sale deed dated 13.08.2013, payment of sale consideration, and subsequent arbitration proceedings, all allegedly took place at Bannu; however, in view of the foregoing, these events do not advance the petitioner's case for the simple reason that the claim substantially relates to rights and interests in immovable property situated at Tehsil Pabbi, District Nowshera.

10.In Haii Abdul Malik and l0 othe rs v. Muhammad Anwar Khan a nd 26 others (2003 SCMR 990), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a suit involves a (Ghafoor Zaman) (S.s.) Hon'ble N4r. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi

Sabir Jamil Vs:

Arman Ullah etc: 5

dispute relating to rights or interests in immovable property, it is maintainable only before the Court within whose territorial Date of hearing jurisdiction the property is situated. It was further held that where the relief claimed does not relate to any right or interest in the For petitione r: Mr. Farooq property Nawaz, and is confined Khattak, to an ancillary matter, the suit may be advocate.

instituted at a place where the cause of action wholly or partly arose.

For respondents: Nemo (in motion)'

11.In these circumstances, the leamed Trial Court rightly the plaint under Order VII' Rule 10 CPC for presentation 't'****rt:t retumed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, and the said order was Vide detailed correctly upheld by judgment. Both the Courts common the impugned below have recorded findings which are in accordance with the settled principles goveming territorial jurisdiction in suits relating judgment of today placed on B.A. No, 99-8/2025 to immovable property. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not meant to re-examine (Muhammad Sher Vs ThewhichState etc), the tnstarfi are otherwise in accordance with law unless the findings impugned orders are shown to suffer from a jurisdictional defect' bail cancellationillegality, No such infirmity has been 1,€,irregularity. No.10- or material application, pointed out in the Present case'

12.Consequently, in 8,12025 is hereby dismissed nlbninie.finding no ground warranting interference constitutional jurisdiction, this petition is dismissed in limine' However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent Court at District Peshawar or District 07.01.202s.

'Inrdnulldh PS' Nowshera, as the case may be, for presentation of the plaint, after its retum by the leamed Trial Court at Bannu, in accordance with law.

(S,B) Hon'ble Mi lastlcc Abdal Fayaz ttL Announced 01.06.2026 u{ -Sd-

JUDGE

Judge Datc of hearing afld amouncement of judgment .................... ....01 06.2026

Date of preparation and signing of judgmeot.............. .......... .09 -06 2026

't

Mr. Justice M q (Ghafoor Zaman) -S.B.) Ilon'ble oos9 (,\tw o.tti