Find a Lawyer

---S. 115--Revision petition against order of trial Court directing plaintiff-petitioners to value administration suit according to valuation of shares sought and to pay Court-fee dismissed by District Judge on ground that same was not competent--Counsel for respondent not in a position to support order of District Judge--Order of District Court holding revision as incompetent declared to be of no legal effect and District Judge directed to dispose of, revision on merits.

Sultan Khan and others v. Master Zia-ud-Din and others 147 lnidan Cases 347; Firm Lal Chand Mangal Sain v. Firm Behari Lal Mehar Chand A I R 1924 Lah. 425 ref.

Bibi Gurdevi v. Chaudhri Muhammad Bakhsh and others A I R 1943 Lah. 65; Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Natho and another P L D 1965 Lah. 686 rel.

Mian Nisar Ahmed for Petitioners.

Abid Hassan Minto for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.

The petitioners are plaintiffs in an administration suit. On 1-7-1978 the trial Court directed the petitioners to value the suit according to the valuation of shares sought and to pay the Court-fee accordingly. This order was challenged in a revision but the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 5-3-197a dismissed the revision petition on the ground that a revision petition was not competent. This order has been assailed in the present writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a revision was competent l and that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned District Judge wrongly placed reliance on the case of Sultan Khan and others v. Master Zia-ud-Din and others 147 Indian Cases 347 as the case relied on in that judgment namely, the case of Firm Lal Chand Mangal Sain v. Firm Behari Lal Mehar Chand AIR 1924 Lah. 425 was subsequently overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bibi Gurdevi v. Chaudhri Muhammad Bakhsh and others AIR 1943 Lah. 65. As regards, the competence of a revision the learned counsel referred to the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Natho and another PLD 1965 Lah. 686. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that a revision petition was competent before the District Court. He I also, therefore, is, not in a position to support the order of the learned District Judge, Gujranwala.

3. In view of the above considerations the writ petition is allowed. 1 The orders of the learned District Judge dated 5-3-1979 are declared to be of no legal effect. The learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the revision petition on merits. The parties are directed to', appear before him, on 2-11-1985. There shall be no order as to costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.