Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 951 of 1979, decided on 18th October 1980.

(On appeal from the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 2nd October, 1979 in R. S. A. No. 353 of 1976).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----

--------O.IV, r. 1-Plaint, presentation of-Plaint can be presented to Court or such Officer as appointed by Court in such behalf-Civil Judge having authorised his Ahlmad to receive plaints in his absence, Ahlmad receiving plaint under such authority and such presentation further authenticated by Tahsildar, according to relevant procedure of place, plaint, held, validly presented.-[Plaint].

Pervez Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

Noor Muhammad

plaintiff/respondent filed a Civil Suit to pre-empt a transaction of sale dated 10-4-1969 as mentioned in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 3-6-1975.

2. The plaintiff-pre-emptor filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 2-2-1976, whereby he reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge and decreed the suit.

3. The defendant/vendees filed a second appeal being S. A.0.353 of 1976, but without any success as the same was dismissed by High Court on 2-10-1979.

4. The defendant/vendees have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

5. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that as the plaint of the plaintiff itself showed valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.5,972.70 therefore its institution in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Class-III (Alipur) was defective with the result that when the suit ultimately reached the Court of competent jurisdiction it had become time barred. The contention has no merit. The learned counsel for the caveators has pointed out that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in the plaint was only Rs.45 and therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel has no merit inasmuch as a suit of that valuation could be fixed before the learned Civil Judge (Alipur). When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer. It was then argued that the suit which was instituted 9-4-1970, in the Court of Civil Judge, Alipur, was actually received by his Ahlmed as the learned Civil Judge on that date was on tour. It was argued that the receipt of the plaint by the Ahlmed was not a proper institution. The contention has no force. According to Order VI, rule 1, C. P. C. a plaint can be presented to the Court or to such Officer as it appoints in this behalf. It is not in dispute that the learned Civil Judge had authorised his Ahlmed to receive the plaints in his absence and this is what exactly was done in this case, and the aforesaid presentation was further authenticated by the Tehsildar Alipur, according to the relevant procedure of the place

6. No other point was argued before us.

7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition 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.