2010 PLP 952 (MLD)
GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN through Legal heirs and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH through Legal heirs and 20 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 952 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN through Legal heirs and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH through Legal heirs and 20 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 952 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 952 (MLD)?
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: 2010 PLP 952 (MLD) (GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN through Legal heirs and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH through Legal heirs and 20 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amin ud Din Khan for Petitioners.
- Mehr Haq Nawaz Hamayun for Respondent No.1.
- Mr. Ameen ud Din Khan Advocate makes out an argument therefrom that after these observations, it was not lawful for the Civil Court to dilate upon the merits of the case.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, this petition merits dismissal.
Headnotes / Summary
S.28
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Civil Court, bar of jurisdiction
Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently declared that in view of S. 28 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, Civil Courts had no jurisdiction
Once a Court or Authority reached to conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon matter, in that eventuality, any observations or findings regarding merits were without jurisdiction and ab inito void
Judgments and decrees passed by courts below were upheld by High Court to the extent that suit filed by plaintiffs before Civil Court was barred in view of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, which stood dismissed on that score alone
Observations made in judgments and decrees passed by the courts below would be of no legal value being against law and were not to be taken into consideration by any forum by deeming that the same were non-existent
High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.
Vide order, dated 8-5-2009, this petition was admitted to regular hearing and it was directed that respondents be served through ordinary mode as well as registered AD. The office has placed on record postal receipts which are indicative of the fact that the respondents were duly served who are absent despite service except respondent No.1, therefore, remaining private respondents are proceeded against ex parte.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners with vehemence argued that the learned Civil Court while giving his findings against issue No.4 has observed as follows:-- "...I hold that since the matter in hand relates to consolidation, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred in view of section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Thus the issue is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants." Mr. Ameen ud Din Khan Advocate makes out an argument therefrom that after these observations, it was not lawful for the Civil Court to dilate upon the merits of the case.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, this petition merits dismissal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners borne out from the record. I find that the learned Civil Court on the one hand observed that it lacked jurisdiction in view of section 28 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and at the same time proceeded to dilate upon various issues/controversies on factual plane which is evident from issue-wise findings of the learned trial Court. The same judgment and decree was also upheld by the learned appellate Court. By now it is well-settled law that once a Court or an authority reaches a conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon a matter, in that eventuality, any observations or findings qua merits are without jurisdiction and ab initio void.
6. In view of the above, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are upheld to the extent that the suit filed by the petitioners before the learned Civil Court was barred in view of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 which stands dismissed on that score alone. The observations made in both the impugned judgments, shall, therefore, be of no legal value, being against law and shall not be taken into consideration by any forum, by deeming that the A same are non-existent.
7. With above modifications, in the impugned judgments and decrees, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. M.H./G-109/L Order accordingly.