1988 PLP 1764 (CLC)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1764 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1764 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1764 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1764 (CLC) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 20‑‑Territorial jurisdiction, determination of‑‑Head Office of establishment against whom suit had been filed being at place 'L' finding of Appellate Court below that Court at place 'L' also has jurisdiction to entertain plaint even if cause of action had arisen at different place, held, was not erroneous.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.1794 of 1987, decided on 17th November, 1987. ‑‑‑S. 20‑‑Territorial jurisdiction, determination of‑‑Head Office of establishment against whom suit had been filed being at place 'L' finding of Appellate Court below that Court at place 'L' also has jurisdiction to entertain plaint even if cause of action had arisen at different place, held, was not erroneous. Abdul Majid Sheikh for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1987. This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 18‑2‑1987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order dated 16‑4‑1986 of the learned trial Court returning the plaint for presentation .to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The appellate Court was of the view that the Civil Courts at Lahore had also the jurisdiction as the head offices of the functionaries of Water Management are situated at Lahore.
2. I have gone through the plaint and the written‑statement. In view of the pleadings of the parties, it cannot be said that the Civil Courts at Lahore have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. NOA jurisdictional error, as such, has been committed by the learned appellate Court. The revision petition is without merit and is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . /P‑35/ L Revision dismissed.