Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No. 128 of 1971, decided on 2nd June, 1971.

‑‑ S. 9‑Jurisdiction‑Question of jurisdiction of Court, held, has to be determined by reference to state of facts contained in plaint and not upon finding that trial Court arrives at on issues framed before it.‑‑(Jurisdiction).

Zafar Khan for Applicant.

The respondent in this revision application had filed a suit in the Court of the 1st Class Civil Judge at Mirpurkhas against the present petitioners for a declaration of their title to agricultural land and for an injunction against the appellants. The land in dispute is situated in Umerkot and ordinarily the suit should have been filed in the Court of the Second Class Civil Judge, Umerkot. It is alleged by the present applicants that the respondents was interested in filing the suit to the Court of the 1st Class Civil Judge at Mirpurkhas instead of in the Court at the 2nd Class Civil Judge at Umerkot. This design could only be achieved by impleading in the suit a Government servant. Consequently the Tapedar of Umerkot was added with present applicants and it was alleged by the respondents that the said Tapedar was acting in collusion with the applicants.

The learned Civil Judge framed the issues and gave his finding on all the material issues against the present applicants. However, in relation to the issue concerning his jurisdiction he came to hold that there was no evidence of collusion between the applicants and the Tapedar and that the Tapedar had wrongly been impleaded. In this view of the matter he held that with the Tapedar being excluded from the array of parties he ceased to have jurisdiction in the suit. The plaint was thus ordered to be returned to the respondents for the presentation to the proper Court. The respondents carried a miscellaneous appeal against the last men tioned order to the learned District Judge Mirpurkhas. This appeal succeeded before him. The learned District Judge found that the proper course for the learned Civil Judge 1st Class to have followed was to have merely dismissed the suit against the Tapedar on a finding that he was an unnecessary party and that there was no evidence of collusion.

This order of the learned District Judge has been questioned by way of a revision application before me. I have heard the learned counsel and I do not see how any exception could be taken to the order passed by the learned District Judge. It may be that the Tapedar had been added as a party with a view to confer jurisdiction on the Court of the 1st Class Civil Judge but nonetheless, as correctly observed by the learned District Judge, the question of jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined by reference to the statement of facts contained in the plaint and not upon the finding that the trial Court reaches upon the issues framed before it.

Mr. Zafar Khan, the learned counsel for the applicants stated that in fact the suit which was remanded to the learned Civil Judge for dis posal on merits has since been decreed against the applicants. The applicants should perhaps be better advised to contest the decree on merits.

For the reasons given above this revision application is dismissed summarily.

M.Y.H. Revision 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.