2010 PLP 1970 (SCMR)
NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL (N.L.C.) — Petitioner Versus HAZRAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1970 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Perwez and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL (N.L.C.) — Petitioner Versus HAZRAT ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1970 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1970 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Perwez and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1970 (SCMR) (NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL (N.L.C.) — Petitioner Versus HAZRAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saalim Salam Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 2009.
- 3. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in support of the Petitions has firstly submitted that Suit No.391 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs.13,30,000 and Suit No.393 of 1997 for Rs.27,31,600 and hence in both the suits the amount prayed for and decreed were much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court which starts at Rs.30,00,000. However, Suit No.392 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs.68,14,000 and as no order of consolidation was passed in the three suits, therefore, in so far as Suits Nos.391 and 393 of 1997 are concerned these are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court.
- 4. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has also feebly argued that the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement although a proper application was moved for doing so belatedly; that it was a case of contributory negligence and finally that the learned High Court has awarded certain items to the respondents which were not even prayed for.
- 5. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and gone through the record carefully with his assistance. In so far as the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned High Court concerned, the same has been adverted to in the impugned judgment and the conclusion reached was that when the suits were filed in the year 1997 the learned High Court had the jurisdiction which was amended on 18th September, 2002 by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance 2002 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Karachi Districts in Civil Suits was increased upto Rs.30,00,000 and all proceedings not exceeding such amount pending in the High Court stood immediately transferred to the concerned District Court for disposal. As all the Civil Suits arose from the same cause of action, on pointation of the learned Counsel for the parties it was ordered that Suit No.393 of 1997 which was filed for recovery of Rs.68,14,000 still pending in the High Court after promulgation of Ordinance 2002 was directed to be tagged along with other two suits. We find that this direction was eminently correct and passed in order to avoid conflict of decisions. In so far as the other points taken by the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we-find no substance in the same as admittedly sufficient time was given to the petitioner to file its written statement and on its failure to do so its side was closed. However, the petitioner did examine Respondents' C witnesses and also led its own evidence.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 20-11-2008 passed in H.C.As. Nos. 336, 337 and 338 of 2005).
S. 1
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suits filed by the plaintiffs were decreed and High Court appeals filed by the defendants were also dismissed
Defendants had raised objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court and contended that one suit was filed for. recovery of Rs.13,30,000 and other suit was filed for recovery of Rs.27,31,600 and both were much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court, which jurisdiction started at Rs.30,00,000; that third suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 68,14,000; that since no order of consolidation of three suits was passed, first two . suits were beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court
When suits were filed in 1997, High Court had the jurisdiction, which subsequently was amended by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts was increased upto Rs.30,00,000; and all proceedings not exceeding such amount pending in the High Court, stood immediately transferred to the District Court for disposal
As all the civil suits arose from the same cause of action, Supreme Court ordered that suit which was filed for recovery of Rs.68,14,000 pending in High Court after promulgation of Ordinance, 2002 was directed to be tagged along with other two suits to avoid conflict of decisions.
O. VIII, R.10
Written statement, non filing of
Contention of Counsel for defendants, that he was not allowed to file written statement, was repelled as sufficient time was given to him to file written statement and on his failure to do so his side was closed
Even otherwise he did examine witnesses of the plaintiffs and also led evidence
No interference being called for in the impugned judgment, leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
These Petitions impugn the common judgment dated 20-11-2008 passed by learned Sindh High Court in High Court Appeals Nos. 336, 337 and 338 of 2005 whereby the same were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein had filed Suits Nos. 391, 392 and 393 of 1997 against the petitioner under Fatal Accidents Act 1855 for compensation/damages suffered as a result of the death of three persons due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner's employees while driving Trailer No. 829-050 on the wrong side of the National Highway on its way from Karachi to Thatta. The Suits were decreed against which the petitioners had filed above mentioned High Court Appeals which were dismissed as noted above.
3. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in support of the Petitions has firstly submitted that Suit No.391 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs.13,30,000 and Suit No.393 of 1997 for Rs.27,31,600 and hence in both the suits the amount prayed for and decreed were much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court which starts at Rs.30,00,
000. However, Suit No.392 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs.68,14,000 and as no order of consolidation was passed in the three suits, therefore, in so far as Suits Nos.391 and 393 of 1997 are concerned these are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court.
4. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has also feebly argued that the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement although a proper application was moved for doing so belatedly; that it was a case of contributory negligence and finally that the learned High Court has awarded certain items to the respondents which were not even prayed for.
5. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and gone through the record carefully with his assistance. In so far as the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned High Court concerned, the same has been adverted to in the impugned judgment and the conclusion reached was that when the suits were filed in the year 1997 the learned High Court had the jurisdiction which was amended on 18th September, 2002 by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance 2002 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Karachi Districts in Civil Suits was increased upto Rs.30,00,000 and all proceedings not exceeding such amount pending in the High Court stood immediately transferred to the concerned District Court for disposal. As all the Civil Suits arose from the same cause of action, on pointation of the learned Counsel for the parties it was ordered that Suit No.393 of 1997 which was filed for recovery of Rs.68,14,000 still pending in the High Court after promulgation of Ordinance 2002 was directed to be tagged along with other two suits. We find that this direction was eminently correct and passed in order to avoid conflict of decisions. In so far as the other points taken by the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we-find no substance in the same as admittedly sufficient time was given to the petitioner to file its written statement and on its failure to do so its side was closed. However, the petitioner did examine Respondents' C witnesses and also led its own evidence.
6. Consequently we find no force in these petitions and hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgments and the same are hereby dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./N-6/SC Leave refused.