1995SCMR520 (PLP)
EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD through the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR520 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD through the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR520 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR520 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR520 (PLP) (EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD through the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 15‑3‑1993 passed in Civil Revision No. 614/1992). ‑‑‑‑S.14‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court‑‑‑Property in question was claimed to be Evacuee Trust Property by defendant‑‑ Defendant's application for rejection of plaint for lack of jurisdiction by Civil Court was accepted by Trial Court but rejected by Appellate Court below as` also by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether trial Court was under obligation to reject the plaint as from averments in the plaint suit appeared to be barred by law and that Trial Court could not take cognizance of the matter in view of S. 9, C.P.C. and its order rejecting plaint was unexceptionable and the orders of Appellate Court restoring plaint and of High Court affirming the same were contrary to law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by Evacuee Trust Property Board has arisen out of a suit instituted by respondent No: 1 for a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of share measuring two Marlas in House No. 224/B‑II Parnami Mohallah, Sahiwal, and order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 19‑5‑1961 declaring the said house as evacuee trust property was null, void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Permanent injunction was prayed for as a consequential relief. During the pendency of the suit the defendant/petitioner herein moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was time‑barred and Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned Civil Judge observed that the dispute in the suit was regarding the nature of the property and the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine this question as the jurisdiction of the ' Civil Court is expressly barred under section 14 of the Act XIII of 1975. He, therefore, allowed the application and rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. The respondent No. 1 herein challenged this order in the District Court. His appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge and the case was sent back to the Civil Court with a direction to decide the same on merits after recording evidence of the parties. The Revision Petition filed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board in the High Court failed vide judgment dated 15‑3‑1993 and hence this petition.
2. The reason which mainly weighed with the learned Single Judge for upholding the order of the Additional District Judge is that "propriety demands that now when the litigation has spread over several years and all the issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties have been fixed for final determination, the matter be permitted to proceed, so that it is decided on merits, and I do not think the exercise will take long".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Civil Judge was under an obligation to reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, of the C.P.C. as from the statement in the plaint the suit appeared to be barred by law and the observation made by the Additional District Judge that the Court had framed the issues and should decide the matter, which was affirmed by the High Court, is contrary to law. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court having been expressly barred under a special enactment, the learned Civil Judge could not take cognizance of the matter in view of section 9 of the C.P.C. and his order rejecting the plaint is unexceptionable. After hearing the learned counsel we grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions. The proceedings in Court below are stayed meanwhile. AA./E‑49/S Leave granted.