P L D 1966 (W (PLP)
WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE‑Petitioner Versus HAZRAT GUL KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Faizullah Khan, J |
| Parties | WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE‑Petitioner Versus HAZRAT GUL KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Faizullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 (W (PLP) (WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE‑Petitioner Versus HAZRAT GUL KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sher Bahadur Khan, A. A.‑G. for Petitioner.
- Abdul Samad Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 5th July 1965.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9 Jurisdiction of Court challenged‑Court to decide question before proceeding one step-further in case.
Judgment & Decree
Sher Bahadur Khan, A. A.‑G. for Petitioner. Abdul Samad Khan for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 5th July 1965. This revision is directed against the order, dated 8‑7‑1964, of the Senior Civil Judge, Hazara, whereunder, purporting to act under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. X of 1940), he appointed the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Northern Circle, Mardan, as an "arbitrator to decide upon the respective points and dispute between the parties".
2. It will be sufficient for the disposal of this revision to say that the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be sustained for the short and good reason that as many as nine issues were settled in the case, including issue No. 7, namely, whether the Senior Civil Judge had got jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, passed the impugned order without giving any finding, on any one of the issues. This, in my view, was not the proper way of disposing the case.
3. In view of issue No. 7, disputing the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge to entertain the suit, it was incumbent on him to have recorded a clear cut finding on that issue, and without having decided that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, he could not have recorded any finding, whatsoever, on other issues, in that to do so, was exercising jurisdiction without having held, whether he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In all cases where the question of jurisdiction is raised, the Court must con sider and decide the question before it can move one step further in the case, as any movement is necessarily in exercise of jurisdiction.
4. I, therefore, accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for decision on all the issues. Parties should appear in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hazara, on 31‑7‑1965. K. B. A. Petition accepted.