1988 PLP 1766 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner, an employee of a local body (the respondent) against the acceptance of a Civil Revision filed by the respondent and remand of the case for retrial. The petitioner's suit against his compulsory retirement from service of the Committee was decreed. The respondent's appeal failed but in civil revision the High Court held that by virtue of section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 the trial should have been held at the headquarters of the district while in fact it took place at the headquarters of a tehsil. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the case was remanded to the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, for its disposal in accordance with law implying that the same had to be held at the headquarters of the District. Reliance was placed on Province of the Punjab v Abdul Majid (NLR 1983 Service 56 judgment by the Supreme Court). Learned counsel has contended that the decision in the case of Abdul Majid is distinguishable; that the trial (if the suit was held at the headquarters of a sub‑division; and that in any case, no prejudice was caused to the respondent even if there was some technical defect by virtue of the application of section 24(2). It has also to be noticed that section 21, C.P.C. which deals with the filing of a suit before a wrong Court was not examined in the context of the requirements of section 24(2) relied upon in the impugned judgment. Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (i) and section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (ii) are re‑produced below: ‑ (i) "24(2): In every such case the plaintiff shall be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in original suit without limit as regards value and such suit shall be instituted only in the Court of such Civil Judge and shall be heard at the headquarters of the district." (ii) "21: Objections to Jurisdiction.‑‑No objection as to the place of suing shall‑be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice." Though it appears that an objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court was raised before the trial Court but as contended by the learned counsel it was in a different context. The question needs examination: whether the judgment and decree impugned before the' High Court could have been set aside as without jurisdiction without satisfying the requirements of section 21, C.P.C. (amongst other questions, requiring examination) Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.1,

000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. M.I./K‑66/S Leave granted.