2008 PLP 1472 (CLC)
Mst. SHABINA MANSOOR — Plaintiff Versus MERRY LAND BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS — Defendant
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1472 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHABINA MANSOOR — Plaintiff Versus MERRY LAND BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS — Defendant |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1472 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1472 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1472 (CLC) (Mst. SHABINA MANSOOR — Plaintiff Versus MERRY LAND BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
When Court having no jurisdiction proceeded with the matter, the entire proceedings would be illegal and without jurisdiction
Provision of S.9, C.P.C. vested jurisdiction in the civil court to try all the cases of civil nature, except those where its jurisdiction was ousted by any statute expressly or impliedly
Civil court was a court of ultimate jurisdiction and in cases where no other remedy was provided for, civil court would be the forum where relief could be sought for
Civil Court had the ultimate jurisdiction to examine the legality and illegality in the orders passed by concerned authorities.
O. VII, R.11 & O.XXXIX, R.4
Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, Regln.5-2-26
Application for
Plaintiff in the case, though had filed complaint against defendant under Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, but did not wait for decision of the competent authorities and came to the High Court without exhausting remedy provided to him by law
Application of the defendant filed, by him under Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. was allowed and plaint was rejected for want of jurisdiction as provided under Rgln. 5-2-26 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002
Status quo granted under O. XXXIX, R.4, C.P.C. stood vacated, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C.J.
These applications under Order VII, rule 11 and Order XXXIX, rule 4 of C.P.C. are filed by the defendant with the prayer to reject the plaint. The first application is under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and the same has to be decided first. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the argument of the learned counsel it transpires that there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendant which has been cancelled by the defendant and defendant has relied on Regulation 5-2-26 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002. The said rule is reproduced as under:-- "All disputes of the developer and allottee shall be referred to the authority. An appeal against the decision made by the Authorized Officer of Authority may be filed before the Chief Controller of Buildings and thereafter any further appeal shall be made to an Appeal Committee consisting of the Chief Executive of the Authority, Chairman P.E.C. of the representative, Chairman, P.C.A.T.P. or his representative, one representative of Association of Builders and Developers (A.B.A.D.) and the representative of the concerned Authority. The decision of this Committee shall be final and irrevocable." In view of the above, I have come to the conclusion that a Court must decide at first the issue of jurisdiction and then proceed further with the case. When Court having no jurisdiction proceeds with the matter, the entire proceedings would be illegal and without jurisdiction. Provision of section 9 of the Code vests jurisdiction in Civil Court to try all the cases of civil nature, except those where its jurisdiction is ousted by any statute expressly or impliedly. Civil Court is a Court of ultimate jurisdiction, and in cases where no other remedy is provided for, Civil Court is the forum where relief can be sought for. Reliance is placed on Ramdas v. Mst. Burnadat PLD 1998 Kar.
42. Needless to say, the Civil Court has the ultimate jurisdiction to examine the legality and illegality in the orders passed by the concerned authorities after all the remedies provided under the said regulations. This is also admitted position that the plaintiff although filed complaint against the defendant under this regulation before the authority but did not wait for decision of the competent authorities and came to this Court without exhausting remedy provided to him by law. In the above circumstances, I allow application of the defendant under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and reject the plaint for want of jurisdiction as provided under Regulation 5-2-26 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002. So far as the application of the defendant under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. is concerned, the status quo granted on 14-11-2007 stands vacated. Both applications are disposed of. H.B.T./S-53/K Plaint rejected.