1979 PLP 426 (CLC)
Mst. BEGUM JAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ATTIQUE AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 426 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. BEGUM JAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ATTIQUE AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 426 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 426 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 426 (CLC) (Mst. BEGUM JAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ATTIQUE AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zamir Hussain for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Waris v. Muhammad Aslam Khan P L D 1966 Lah. 342 fol, Sh. Zamir Hussain for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th May, 1979. This is a revision petition against an order dated 21st March, 1969, by which the learned trial Court held that the preliminary issue about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court involved the direct decision of the question in issue on merits. That could not, therefore, be decided in the preliminary issue.
2. The, plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession of the land described in the plaint on the ground that they were owners of that property and the defendants have unlawfully occupied it. The defendants petitioners pleaded in the written statement that they bad obtained the land as a result of consolidation proceedings in the village in lieu of the land surrendered by them and as such the Civil Court had no jurisdic tion. The plaintiffs-respondents in their replication, however, alleged that the consolidation proceedings were taken at their back and the orders of Consolidation Authorities were void and without jurisdiction. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :-- Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? In stead of deciding the issue the Court put it off for decision along with issues on merits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Waris v. Muhammad Aslant Khan (P L D 1966 Lah. 342) in which in a similar case it was held that the suit was barred by section 22 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936. In that suit also it was urged that the mort gagees were neither served nor heard by the Consolidation Officer. Some other points were also taken. Their Lordships considered it unnecessary to decide the points urged by the learned counsel for the parties in view of the provisions of section 22 which provided that "no civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted, or application made, to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which the Provincial Govern ment or any officer is, by this Act, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of". It was further held that a party should not rush to civil Court without first exhausting remedy before appellate or revisional authority under that Act. This case is on all fours. A similar provision in section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, which bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court- as regards the matters arising under the Ordinance. It was open to the plaintiffs-respondents to file necessary proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities after the filing of the written statement if he had no knowledge of the order. The suit, however, cannot continue. It is dismissed with costs through out as barred by the above provisions. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.