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.
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
Mst. HUSSAN ARA AND ANOTHER-Appellants
versus
Mst. AMIR BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 803 of 1980, decided on 18th March, 1981..
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----
S. 102 read with West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18-Second appeal-Jurisdictional value of first appeal preferred by appellants fixed at Rs. 20J keeping in view value of original suit. Appellants, held, cannot contend at stage of second appeal that value of subject-matter of original suit was not Rs. 200 but more than Rs. 50,000 especially when jurisdictional value of second appeal was also given as Rs. 200.-[Second appeal-Jurisdiction].
Ch. Inyatullah Khan for Plaintiff's.
Maqsood Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 18th March, 1981.
This Regular Second Appeal has arisen out of a suit for permanent injunction brought by the appellants, Mst. Husan Ara Begum and another. While resisting this appeal, it was contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mst. Amir Begum, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, that the appeal was not competent. It was urged by him that since the jurisdictional value of the second appeal, as fixed by the appellants, was Rs. 200 the appeal was not competent under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that market value of the property involved in this case was more than Rs. 50,000 and since that amount was value of the subject-matter of the original suit, the appellants were justified in filing the second appeal in hand,
3. Admittedly, the jurisdictional value of the first appeal preferred by the appellants was also fixed by the appellants at Rs. 200. According to section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, the first appeal was to be filed keeping in view "the value of the original suit". 1n view o clause (b) of section 2 of the said Ordinance "value" means the amount o value of the subject-matter of the suit. Thus, according to the appellants, at the time of the filing of the first appeal the value of the subject-matter of the original suit was Rs. 200. Therefore, it was not open to them to contend at the stage of the second appeal that value of the subject-matter of original suit was not Rs. 200, but more than Rs. 50,000, especially when the jurisdictional value of the second appeal, was also given as Rs. 200.
4, Even if what the appellants had done in connection with the first appeal is ignored, they cannot be permitted to pursue the second, appeal in hand. According to section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal is competent if the value of the subject-matter of the original suit exceeds Rs. 50,000. The appellants' case as spelt out in paragraph 5 of their grounds of appeal is that, the value of the subject-matter in the present case is about Rs. 50,000 which can be equal to or less than Rs. 50,00% Thus, even if they are allowed to take the plea as raised in their grounds of appeal, it would not be possible to entertain their appeal.
5, In view of what has gone above, I sustain the objection of learned counsel for the respondent and hold that this second appeal is not competent, It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer