Find a Lawyer

Applications for Review under O. XLVII rule 1 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code, decided on 4th November 1955.

, S. 226 sub‑clause (1) Matters concerning Government revenue‑High Court have no jurisdiction‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑O. VII, rules 10 and 1l‑Return and rejection of plaints, The nineteen applicants in the present case filed in the High Court, suits of identical nature, seeking declaration by the Court that the duty levied by the government on imported matches at enhanced rates was void and ultra sires.

After the plaints and written statements were filed and issues framed in all matters, the Court took up issue regard ing section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as a preliminary issue and finally decided that the duty was enhanced by the Custom Authorities under the direction of the Central Board of Revenue and so in view of section 226, sub clause (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the High Court had no jurisdiction. Consequently the suits were dismissed.

Whereupon the plaintiffs filed in the Court applications for review of the order on the ground that either the. Court should have returned the plaints under O. VII rule 10 or rejected them under O. VII rule 11.

Held, the question of returning the plaints could arise only when there was any other Court in which the present suit could have been filed and secondly under O. XIV rule 2 of Civil P. C. and O. XV rule 3 Civil P. C. it was open to the Court to try the issues of law only and pronounce judgment.

E. V. Castellino for Plaintiffs.

S. Nasir‑ud‑Din for Defendants.

‑These are 19 applications under Order XLVII rule 1 read with section 151 Civil P. C. with the prayer that I should review my order dismissing the suit. It is sought by the various plaintiffs who have made the applications for review that I should review my order by returning the plaints for presenting them to the proper Court. The facts leading to the present applications are briefly these :‑

Nineteen cases were filed in this Court in which common question of law was involved and the facts also were similar. In all the cases .a declaration was sought that the levy of duty on imported matches at an enhanced rate was ultra sires and void. The duty was enhanced by the Custom authorities under the direction of the Central Board of Revenue. It was contended by the Federation of Pakistan that the question related to the revenue of the Government of Pakistan and therefore this Court had no jurisdiction. The defendants relied on section 226 of the Constitution Act 1935 and sub‑clause (1) of the same reads as under :‑

" Until otherwise provided by Act of the appropriate legislature, no High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue; or concerning any Act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country or the lays for the time being in force "

I held in all the matters that this Court had no juris diction relying on a number of authorities in view of section 226 of the Government of India Act and dismissed the suits.

After the plaints and written statements were filed in all the matters a number of issues were framed. Thereafter the matter came up for final hearing before me. The issue regarding section 226 of the Constitution Act was tried as a preliminary issue in all the 19 cases.

In my opinion the contention of the learned advocates that the plaints should have been returned to the plaintiffs to be presented to the proper Court is not tenable and does not give any ground for review under Order XLVII rule 1, Civil P. C. Rule 10 of Order VII Civil P. C. reads as under :

"(1) The plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

(2) On returning a plaint the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the ‑name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it ".

In the first place what is necessary to see in view of sub‑clause (1) of rule 10 of Order VII is whether the plaint could be presented to any other Court. The relevant words are "the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to‑ the Court in which the suit should have been instituted ". The learned advocates for the plaintiffs have failed to show any other Court at Karachi where the suits could have been filed on the day that they were filed in this Court. The question of returning the plaints could have arisen only when there was any other Court in, which the present suits could have been filed and were wrongly instituted in this Court. There is no doubt that the suits were wrongly instituted in view of section 226 of the Government of India Act but the question remains if these suits could have been filed anywhere else at Karachi on the day that they were instituted in this Court. As I have already said, the learned advocates were not able to make any submission on this score.

So far as the question that the plaints should have been rejected under Order VII rule 11 Civil P. C. is concerned there is also no force. This cannot be a question for review. In the present case as I have already said, after filing the plaints, written statements were, filed and issues were framed and the suits came for final hearing. It was open to the Court under Order XIV rule 2 Civil P. C. which reads as under to try the issue of law only :‑ .

" Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined ".

In this connection rule 3 of Order XV is also notice able. The relevant portion is rule 3 (1) of Order XV which reads as under :‑

"(1) Where the parties .are at issue on some question of law or of fact, and issues have been framed by the Court as hereinbefore provided, if the Court is satisfied that no further argument or evidence than the parties can at once adduce is required upon such of the issues as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, and that no injustice will result from proceeding with the suit forthwith, the Court may proceed to determine such issues, and, if, the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly, whether the summons has been issued for the settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the suit.

Provided that, where the summons has been issued for the settlement of issues only, the parties or their pleaders are present and none of them objects ".

It is clear after a perusal of the above rules that the Court could pronounce judgment under the present case when the main question to be decided in the first place was whether this Court had jurisdiction to try these suits. The other question could be decided only if this Court had jurisdiction. I, therefore, hold that the order dismissing the suits does not call for review. The applications are dismissed.

K. B. A. Applications dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.