2000 PLP 1879 (MLD)
ABDUL BARI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIL AFROZ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1879 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, J |
| Parties | ABDUL BARI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIL AFROZ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1879 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1879 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1879 (MLD) (ABDUL BARI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIL AFROZ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Fazli Amin for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.18‑‑‑Civil Procedure (:ode (V , of 1908), S.106‑‑‑Assuming of jurisdiction by Appellate Court against interlocutory order ‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Appellate Court under the provision of S.18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, ‑1962 assumes jurisdiction on the basis of valuation fixed in the plaint and not on the basis of a decree granted or refused‑‑‑Forum of appeal against interlocutory orders is the same which has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against decrees under the provisions of S.106, C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, ‑ Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962),. S.18‑‑‑Interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Wrong forum of appeal‑‑‑Plaint was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction, and court‑fee at Rs.29,22,800‑‑ Trial Court refused to grant interim injunction and the order was upheld by Lower Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Interlocutory order in view of the valuation fixed was required to be challenged before the High Court and not before the Lower Appellate Court‑‑‑Appeal before Lower Appellate Court was filed without jurisdiction and order passed by the Court was without jurisdiction and void ab initio‑‑‑Where no appeal was filed before High Court and limitation period had also elapsed, order of the Trial Court would become final‑‑‑Such order of Trial Court could not be challenged in appeal before High Court.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, ‑ Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962),. S.18‑‑‑Interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Wrong forum of appeal‑‑‑Plaint was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction, and court‑fee at Rs.29,22,800‑‑ Trial Court refused to grant interim injunction and the order was upheld by Lower Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Interlocutory order in view of the valuation fixed was required to be challenged before the High Court and not before the Lower Appellate Court‑‑‑Appeal before Lower Appellate Court was filed without jurisdiction and order passed by the Court was without jurisdiction and void ab initio‑‑‑Where no appeal was filed before High Court and limitation period had also elapsed, order of the Trial Court would become final‑‑‑Such order of Trial Court could not be challenged in appeal before High Court. Mian Fazli Amin for Petitioner. This is a revision against the order, dated 30‑9‑1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Dir, whereby the refusal to grant temporary injunction by the learned trial Court on 8‑5‑1999, was upheld.
2. Hamidullah petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit against numerous defendants including the Government for, a declaration to the effect that under agreement, dated 4‑12‑1991, he was entitled to exploit the forest and to receive the royalty thereof. The plaint also included a prayer for permanent injunction and for the grant of the amount of royalty which has been received by respondents Nos. 10 to 12 that amounted‑to Rs.29,22,800 in addition to the prayer for rendition of accounts.
3. It is an admitted fact that the original plaint was valued for, the purposes of jurisdiction and court‑fee at Rs.19,22,800 with particular reference to prayer 'Jeem'. Under section 18 of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, an Appellate Court assumes jurisdiction on the basis of valuation fixed in the plaint and not on the basis of a decree granted or refused. Again under section 106, C.P.C., the forum of appeal against interlocutory orders is the same which has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against decrees.
4. The question would, therefore, be as to what would be the appellate forum in the instant case. Under the above law and in view of the valuation fixed, the interlocutory order required to be challenged before the High Court and not before the District Judge. The appeal before the District Judge was, therefore, filed without jurisdiction and the order of the District Judge, dated 30‑9‑1999 was also without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
5. There being no appeal filed before the High Court and the limitation thereabout also having elapsed, the original order, dated 8‑5‑1999 passed by the trial Court has become final. It cannot now be challenged in appeal before the High Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as non‑maintainable in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Nos. l and 2 of 2000. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./140/P Revision dismissed.