Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4615 of 1982, heard on 14th May, 1983.

‑‑‑‑Art. 9‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Judgment and decree passed by Court beyond territorial jurisdiction of High Court‑-Cannot confer jurisdiction on High Court to exercise constitutional jurisdic tion to declare said judgment and decree to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑Mere fact that a precept in regard to execution of impugned decree received by Court subject to juris diction of High Court cannot extend jurisdiction on High Court to exercise constitutional jurisdiction.‑[Jurisdiction).

Syed Shah v. Political Agent BaJaur Agency and 3 others 1981 Posh. 57 rel.

M/s. Mohammad Ali, Saraf Ali Co. v. The Commission Excess Profits Tax, Madras A I R 1952 Mad. 658 and Abdul it and 3 others v. The Stars and 3 others P L D 1971 Posh. 61 ref.

(p 114 )A dt S. M. Masood for Petitioner.

NOW for Respondents No., I and 2. Fazl‑l‑Miran‑Chauhan for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing : 14th May, 1983.

This Constitutional Petition assails the judgment dated 30th July, and decree dated 8th August, 1981 passed by the learned XXIY Judge Karachi whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a at Re. 300 p. m. on account of maintenance to Mat. Fatima Bibi, his wife viz. respondent No. 3, and a rum of Rs.200 p. m. on account of maintained of his two children t. e. at the rate of Rs. 100 p.m. per child has also been prayed that the execution proceedings of the aforementions decree pending before the Civil Judge, Mandl Bahauddin, Gujart, be also declared as without lawful authority and of no effect.

I Mat. Fatima Bibi, respondent No. 3, is the wife of Mar Ahmed petitioner. They, as a result of their wedlock, have two namely, Amjad Farooq aged 7 years and Safdar Iqbal aged 3 years is alleged that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 both are residence district Gujrat but in order to pressurize the petitioner, respondent instituted a false suit against the petitioner through her brother who is employed at Karachi, before XXIV Civil Judge Karachi, for maintain under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. No service of petitioner wits effected and respondent No. 3 managed to obtain impugned ex parts judgment and decree. Subsequently, a precept been sent to Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, In connection with execs of the impugned decree and thereupon the petitioner learnt about the pugned judgment and decree,

3. It is contended that respondent No. 3 is resident of Gujrat district. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petition 21st December, 1981 In the Court of Judge', Family Court, M 'Bahauddin, district wherein she has acknowledged that she resident of Gujrat district, It is maintained that the learned XXIV of Judge Karachi had no jurisdiction In the matter and, therefore, the pinned judgment and decree passed by him was without lawful authority and could not lawfully, be executed at Mandl Babauddin.

4. The main point for consideration in this case is as to who this Court can in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, declare judgment and decree passed by a Court located beyond the territorial Jurisdiction of this Court, to be without lawful authority and no legal effect, even if the allegations of the petitioner al the factual aspect of the ogle arc proved to be correct. The only it argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this respect is that the im pugned decree is sought to be executed by means of a precept through the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, which Court is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court can competently declare the impugned judgment and decree to be without lawful authority. This contention appears to be without substance inasmuch as the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a Civil Court at Karachi, a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action has, therefore, arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The mere fact that a precept in regard to the impugned decree has been received by the Civil Court at Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a judgment and decree which have been passed by a Court located beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur Agency and 3 others (P L D 1981 Pesh. .57), it has been held that when the impugned order was passed and the action was taken in the tribal territory of Bajaur which was outside the jurisdiction of Peshawar High Court, the mere fact that the impugned order had been conveyed to a person residing within the terri torial limits of the said Court, would not confer jurisdiction upon the Peshawar High Court to interfere with the impugned order which was ‑passed in a territory which was beyond the jurisdiction of that High Court.

5. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been able to find out any direct authority to support his conten tion that since the impugned decree was sought to be executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the same could be declared as without lawful authority by this Court. He has, however, quoted an authority from Indian jurisdiction, viz Messrs Muhammad Ali Sarnf Ali & Co. v. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras (A I R 1952 Mad. 651) which, certainly, has no bearing on the facts of this case. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on Abdul Rehman and 5 others v. The State and.3 others (P L D 1971 Pesh. 61) wherein it was held that whenever an order is made or action taken in territories within the jurisdiction of the High Court even if it is in relation to an occurrence having taken place in a tribal territory, the High Court would have jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction. In the present case. the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a Court which is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the cited authority is of no help to the petitioner.

6. In the light of what has gone above, it is concluded that since) the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a Court which is located beyond' the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court cannot competently, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, declare the impugned judgment and decree to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. 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.