2014 PLP 1123 (CLC)

NADEEM AKHTAR, J.

This application has been filed by legal heir/defendant No.1 Shahzad Aziz, seeking transfer of this Suit from this Court to the Senior Civil Judge concerned. The sole ground on which the transfer has been sought is that the valuation of this Suit is Rs.5.000 million, which is less than the minimum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.

2. This matter was originally filed as a petition on 18-4-1995 by one Mst. Aziz Bano, the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs, for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the assets left by her father Khalifa Muhammad Mian. It was stated in the petition that the deceased had left behind him only two surviving legal heirs namely, daughter Mst. Aziz Bano (the petitioner), and son Khalifa Aziz Mian. The petition was assigned S.M.A. No.105 of 1995. After the death of the petitioner Mst. Aziz Bano, her legal heirs /the present plaintiffs were brought on record in her place. The other legal heir Khalifa Aziz Mian also passed away during the pendency of the petition. Mr. Shahzad Aziz, who is the son/one of the legal heirs of the said Khalifa Aziz Mian, intervened in the proceedings claiming to be the owner of the immovable property which was the subject matter of the petition. In view of the dispute regarding the ownership of the said property, S.M.A. No.105 of 1995 was ordered to be converted into a regular Civil Suit vide order passed on 28-2-2013. Accordingly, the said S.M.A. No.105 of 1995 was converted into a Civil Suit and was registered and renumbered as Suit No.323 of 2013.

3. Ch. Muhammad Hanif, learned counsel for legal heir/defendant No.1, contended that the minimum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is Rs.15.000 million whereas, the petition/Suit is valued at Rs.5.000 million. He submitted that due to this reason, this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this Suit. It is urged that the Suit be transferred for proper adjudication to the Senior Civil Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. No other submission was made by the learned counsel.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Raza Rabbani, learned counsel for defendants 8 to 13, submitted that by virtue of the Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2010 (the Act of 2010), section 7 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, was amended; and, the said amendment provides that the original jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge in Civil Suits and proceedings shall be without limit of the value thereof, excepting in the Districts of Karachi, where the original jurisdiction in Civil suits and proceedings of the value exceeding Rs.15.000 million shall be exercised by the High Court. The learned counsel particularly emphasized on the proviso of the amended section 7 ibid, which provides that nothing contained in section 7 ibid shall affect any Suit or proceedings pending in the High Court prior to the commencement of the Act of 2010, and all such Suits and proceedings shall continue to be tried and decided by the High Court. It was urged that in view of the proviso contained in section 7 ibid, this Suit cannot be transferred to the District Court, and the same can be tried and decided only by this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have also examined the record as well as the amendment referred to by Mr. Raza Rabbani Advocate. The minimum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was changed/enhanced through the Act of 2010, which came in to force on 24-2-2011 when it was notified. The proviso of the amended section 7 ibid specifically provides that the Suits or proceedings pending before this Court in its original civil jurisdiction prior to the commencement of the Act of 2010, shall not be affected by the change/enhancement in the minimum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and, all such Suits and proceedings shall continue to be tried and decided by this Court. It is an admitted position that these proceedings were originally filed on 18-4-1995, that is, much prior to the commencement of the Act of 2010. Therefore, the change/enhancement in the minimum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court on 24-2-2011, shall not affect the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court in relation to these proceedings and, this Court shall continue to exercise its jurisdiction in respect thereof. In view of the above, the listed application is dismissed with no order as to costs. MWA/A-58/Sindh Application dismissed.