Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 526 of 1978, decided on 12th October 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑9‑1978 in W. P. No. 4534 of 1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
---Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Contention that valuation of suit being Rs. 92,000 Court of District Judge possessed no jurisdiction to entertain revision petition repelled by High Court on ground of forum of appeal being determined with reference to valuation as fixed by plaintiff and not on basis of finding as recorded by trial Court in its judgment or decree and that matters of such kind when raised during course of, or at any stage of, ordinary civil suits ought to be determined according to procedure laid down and remedies provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and not by means of writ petition‑View taken by High Court, held, not suffering from any legal infirmity‑Petitioner if aggrieved after passing of final order by District Judge, appropriate remedy available to him under ordinary civil law in appropriate forum‑Defendant himself having also filed a regular first appeal in High Court and point involved most likely to cone up for adjudication in such appeal, High Court, held further, justified in not interfering with matter in its writ jurisdiction.‑
M. A. Khadim, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1978.
‑Muhammad Akhtar (plaintiff') filed a suit for possession of land measuring one kanal with shops constructed on it, situated in Khewat No. 2 Khata No. 9 and Khasra No. 67/28 in Chak No. 557/EB. Tehsil Vehari, District Multan (Vehari is now a separate District). The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge by means of his judgment and decree dated 19‑5‑1977. The relevant order of the Civil Judge in this respect reads as follows :‑
"In view of my findings above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed subject to payment of Rs. 92,000 to defendant No. 1. The defendant shall remove his machinery from the shop which is under his possession. He will also be entitled to remove all other articles of his possession, and private ownership in the residential building. The defendant No. 1 shall hand over the possession to the plaintiff, as it stands on the spot, today. The tenants shall attorn to the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall be entitled to the recovery of the rents from the tenants on its spot. The plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 92,000 in the Court before 30‑9‑1977. The parties to bear their own costs. The court‑fees amounting to Rs.'6,900 shall be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution.
Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the defendant petitioner Sana Ullah instituted a Regular First Appeal No. 194/78 in the Lahore High Court which is still pending.
3. At the same time the plaintiff who also was not satisfied with the various conditions imposed by the learned trial judge in his judgment and decree above mentioned filed a civil revision under section 115, C. P. C. in the Court of the learned District Judge, Vehari. The aforesaid revision is also pending and has not yet been finally disposed of. In that revision petition the defendant‑petitioner raised a preliminary objection that as determined by the learned Civil Judge the valuation of the suit was Rs. 92,000 and therefore the Court of the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. This plea was repelled and it was held that the forum of appeal or revision was to be determined with reference to the valuations star fixed by a plaintiff in his suit and not on the basis of the finding as recorded by the trial Court in its judgment or decree on the subject aforesaid. This order was passed by the learned District Judge on 6‑7‑1978.
3. The defendant‑petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. W. P. 5434 of 1978 under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 25‑9‑1978 with an observations that matters of the kind above‑mentioned, when raised during the course of or at any stage of an ordinary civil suit ought to be determined accordant to the procedure laid down and the remedies provided in the C. P. C. ands not by means of a writ petition: The defendant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant‑petitioner argued that the revision petition of the plaintiff was not maintainable in the Court of the learned District Judge and that the High Court had failed to give any finding on this point. The contention has no merit. The revision petition before the learned District Judge is still pending and we were informed that it was fixed for final hearing before him on 15‑10‑1978. In that view of the matter we do not think that this is a fit case for interference in this matter at this stage. If after the final order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner feels aggrieved he will have the appropriate remedy under the ordinary civil law to challenge the same in the appropriate forum. Moreover, the defenant himself has also filed a regular first appeal in the High Court which too is still pending and where again the point involved is most likely to come up for adjudication. In these circumstances when the matter is pending adjudication at different levels the High Court was justified in not interfering with it in the course of its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer