1998 PLP 1995 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VII, R.10‑‑‑Return of plaint‑‑‑Trial Court refused to admit suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction‑‑‑Plaintiff filed appeal against refusal to admit suit contending that suit ought to have been either admitted or rejected or returned‑‑‑Plea was accepted‑‑‑Pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced in the meantime‑‑‑Appellant contended before the Appellate Court that the Trial Court be directed that the suit/plaint might not be returned now as the pecuniary jurisdiction had been enhanced‑‑‑Held, question regarding return of plaint/suit would be decided in the background of law as to pecuniary jurisdiction which prevailed at the time the suit was filed. Dr. Hameed Ahmed Ayaz for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent. I have examined the orders of the learned two Courts below. Facts, as recorded therein, need no repetition. The learned trial Judge declined to "admit the suit" on 22‑4‑1991, on the two‑fold grounds of the applicant plaintiff, arbitrarily valuing his suit for declaration. Injunction and accounts in contravention of the rule laid down in Muhammad Siddiq v. Haji Ahmed & Co. PLD 1967 Kar. 468, and the subject‑matter of the suit, as gleaned from the plaint, exceeding Rs. 1,00,000, which then was the maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. In appeal, the order was upheld also on the ground that consequential relief of possession was not sought, as was the requirement of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Before me, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the proper course for the Courts below would have been either to fix a valuation of the claim in suit and require commensurate payment of court‑fee, if necessary, or to return the plaint, if it was found beyond jurisdiction or to reject it if payment of court‑fee, in compliance of the revised value arrived at by the Court, had not been made good or if the suit was barred. I am afraid the learned counsel is right. Declining to admit the suit, in reality, is hardly an order, which the Presiding Officer of a Court can lawfully pass when a plaint is presented in his or her Court. The plaint is either to be admitted or rejected or returned, as the requirement of a situation may warrant. This does not seem to have been done by the two Courts below and the impugned orders, therefore, are not sustainable. Such are set aside and the suit is remanded back for appropriate orders to the learned Civil Judge. At this stage it may be noted, as the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out, that, in the meantime, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of First Class Civil Judges, functioning at Karachi, has been enhanced from a maximum of Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000, and that being so, the plaint, even if the conclusion as to valuation of the learned Judge remains the same, is not to be returned. In this the learned counsel is wrong because the question of return of plaint would be decided in the background of the law, as to jurisdiction, which prevailed at the time the suit came to be filed and if the plaint is returned, irrespective of the time when it is returned, representation shall have to be made to the Court, which possessed the applicable jurisdiction, at the time the erroneous institution came to be made, assuming always that the Court subsists. With the foregoing observations, the revision application is allowed but with no order as to costs. C.M.A./M‑341/K Revision petition allowed.