Find a Lawyer

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD. versus MESSRS FRIENDS CORPORATION STEVEDORES (PVT.) LTD

75 7 - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O VH, R 10 - Amendment to the Law Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 - High Court of Appeal ec special jurisdiction The return or denial of dispute between the parties was Whether to return or reject it after the determination of legal jurisdiction. - Justification - The case filed by the plaintiff, under section 7 of the Sindh Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, was withheld on the basis of legal jurisdiction - the court either rejected the plaintiff's desire for legal jurisdiction or The claimant had to return. The ownership rule demands that when the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and the plaintiff was wrongfully filed in another court with no \ jurisdiction. The basis of the specific value of the case or territorial boundary, where this case was filed by the court, should be returned to the plaintiff in order to present the case to the plaintiff, in which both the multiple prisoners Contains iary and territorial jurisdiction, as if the case had never been established. This was not a case of solitary confinement, but because of this it was necessary to return the claim because even the order to "dismiss the plaintiff" was a matter of restriction by the court in a case where it was seriously clear. Was stopped as The Division Bench of the Section 7 ??? High Court of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, returned the plaintiff and allowed the plaintiff to appear before the jurisdiction of the High Court, thereby setting aside the order passed by a single judge of the High Court. In circumstances where the High Court of Appeal allowed, [Page 689] A&C

P L D 2017 Sindh 678

Before Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Nazar Akbar, JJ

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD.—Appellant

versus

Messrs FRIENDS CORPORATION STEVEDORES (PVT.) LTD—Respondent

High Court Appeal No.248 of 2014, decided on 31st July, 2017.

(a) Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)—

—5. 7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VH, R. 10—Law RefÓrm;s Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—High Court appeal—Pecuniary jurisdiction—Return or rejection of plaint—Scope—Dispute between the parties was whether after determination of pecuniary jurisdiction plaint was to be returned or rejected—Validity—Suit filed by plaintiff was barred by virtue of S. 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction—Court was either supposed to reject the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction or it was to be returned to plaintiff—Rule of propriety demanded that when there was a Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and plaint was wrongly filed in another Court, which had 'no jurisdiction' either on the ground of pecuniary value of the suit or territorial limits, to be tried by Court where it was filed, instead of rejecting the plaint, such Court should return the plaint to plaintiff for presentation before a Court having both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, as if the suit had never been instituted; it was not the case of propriety alone, rather it was necessary to return the plaint because even order of 'rejection of plaint' was a case of implied exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in a case where cognizance was expressly barred by S. 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962—Division Bench of High Court returned the plaint and allowed plaintiff to present the same before Court of competent jurisdiction resultantly order passed by Single Judge of High Court was set aside—High Court appeal was allowed in circumstances, [p. 689] A & C

Rimpa Sunbeam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Administrator PLD 2006 Kar. 444; S.M. Waseem Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 338; National Bank of Pakistan v. Humayun Sultan Mufti 1984 CLC 1401; Malik Jehangir Khan v. Banking Tribunal No.l, Karachi Division Karachi and 4 others 2002 CLD 1466; National Logistic Cell through Commanding Officer NLC v. Abdul Qayyum Khan and others 2009 MLD 948; Rahmatullah v. Ikramullah 1984 CLC 886; PLD 1957 Lah. 689; PLD 1971 SC 247; Shafi-ur-Rehman and 2 others • v. Fateh Muhammad PLD 2002 Kar. 511 and Muhammad Naveed Aslam and 3 others v. Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and 2 others PLD 2010 Kar. 261 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O.VII, R. 10—Return of plaint—Scope—Order to 'return of plaint' is not an order by exercising jurisdiction in a case where Court is not competent to try the same, it is a declaration to the effect that suit is triable by some other Court which is in existence, [p. 689] B

pakistani advocates Kotla Jam lawyer