2016 PLP 611 (MLD)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Tourism Islamabad and 4 others — Petitioners Versus BEHRAM KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 611 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Tourism Islamabad and 4 others — Petitioners Versus BEHRAM KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 611 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 611 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 611 (MLD) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Tourism Islamabad and 4 others — Petitioners Versus BEHRAM KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoukat Ali for Petitioners.
- Mohammad Nazir for Respondent.
- 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the relevant record. From ex-facie perusal of this petition, it is evident that in para No.6 of this petition, petitioners have clearly averred that the petition is within time. It is not disputed that through the suit respondent has prayed for recovery of Rs.7901,682/- and obviously, all the orders of the learned trial court in the suit are subject to appeal or could be challenged in the High Court as the pecuniary value of the suit is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court. Learned counsel for petitioners failed to convince the court that revision is competent against the impugned order. Learned counsel did not argue about the effects of not presenting the petition returned to the petitioners by the learned District Court.
- 4. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued that petitioners/ defendants have waived their right of taking up the ground embodied in the petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. dated 15-12-2011. In my opinion, the question of waiver or otherwise of the said ground must be proved or rebutted through evidence in the trial proceedings of the suit between parties.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R. 11
Scope
Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by the Trial Court and revision was filed which was returned for presenting the same before Chief Court
Defendants instead of presenting the same petition drafted another petition and presented the same before the Chief Court
Present petition did not contain any ground showing that defendants went through the proceedings in the District Court
Order passed by the Trial Court could be challenged in the Chief Court as value of suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court
Question of waiver or otherwise under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. must be proved or rebutted through evidence in the trial proceedings of the suit
Revision was dismissed in circumstances
Parties would be free to prove and rebut the question of waiver or otherwise under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Order dated 19-06-2014, passed by the learned counsel of Civil Judge Skardu, in Civil Suit No.30/2011, has been challenged through this petition.
2. Petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint of Civil Suit (C.S. No.30/2011). Learned trial court heard the parties and dismissed the petition through order dated 19-06-2014. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners/ defendants filed a revision petition in the court of District Judge Skardu, who, through his order dated 18-09-2014, returned the said petition in the following words:-- "Original copy of memo of petition be returned to the petitioners after obtaining a copy of the same. Certificate of rejection be prepared and annexed with the file. Order announced. File after due completion be consigned to record." Petitioners/defendants, instead of presenting the same petition in this court, drafted another petition on 19-09-2014 and presented the same in this Court. The petition does not contain any ground showing that petitioners went through the proceedings in the District Court Skardu. Petitioners have filed a petition under Section 14 of Limitation Act with this !petition, wherein, they have described the proceedings, they had undergone before the District Court in connection with the revision petition returned to them from the said court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the relevant record. From ex-facie perusal of this petition, it is evident that in para No.6 of this petition, petitioners have clearly averred that the petition is within time. It is not disputed that through the suit respondent has prayed for recovery of Rs.7901,682/- and obviously, all the orders of the learned trial court in the suit are subject to appeal or could be challenged in the High Court as the pecuniary value of the suit is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court. Learned counsel for petitioners failed to convince the court that revision is competent against the impugned order. Learned counsel did not argue about the effects of not presenting the petition returned to the petitioners by the learned District Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued that petitioners/ defendants have waived their right of taking up the ground embodied in the petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. dated 15-12-2011. In my opinion, the question of waiver or otherwise of the said ground must be proved or rebutted through evidence in the trial proceedings of the suit between parties.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the petition merits dismissal. Petition dismissed. Anyhow, parties are free to prove and rebut the question of waiver or otherwise of the ground of petition under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Petition is dismissed. This file be consigned to record. ZC/123/GB Revision dismissed.