1989 PLP 138 (CLC)
KHALIQ DAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 138 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam Mian, J |
| Parties | KHALIQ DAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 138 (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 1989 PLP 138 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Aslam Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 138 (CLC) (KHALIQ DAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mahmood Hassan for Petitioner.
- Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 21, 115 &
0. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Suit for recovery‑ Jurisdiction‑‑Objection as to jurisdiction to try suit by trial Court, should be raised before Court seized of suit and not within scope of revision petition which was primarily from order imposing condition for grant of leave to defend suit‑‑On question of jurisdiction there must be a finding by trial Court to be revised by Revisional Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mahmood Hassan for Petitioner. Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987. This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted on 30‑7‑1985 by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of the District Judge, Bhakkar for the recovery of Rs.15,000 on the basis of a pronote alleged to have been executed by the petitioner on 30th August, 1982. The suit came to be disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar who (on the application of the petitioner) allowed the petitioner to defend the suit subject to the deposit of Rs.15,000 in the Court within one month. This is vide order dated 13‑7‑1986.
2. The petitioner filed a revision petition in this Court taking an exception to the above said order. The revision petition was admitted for regular hearing, the operation of the impugned order was suspended in the meantime subject to notice and subject to the furnishing of security by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
3. Today, Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Application for the suspension of the impugned order made by the petitioner and has submitted that since the security has been furnished by the petitioner as to the suit money, the revision petition may be accepted so that the trial Court may proceed with the suit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit cannot be proceeded with as the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in a summary manner as contemplated under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Since the disputed pronote was executed on 30‑8‑1982 and the suit was filed on 30th July, 1985, the suit as such was clearly beyond the period of one year as prescribed by Article 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. As a matter of course the petitioner is to raise the objection as to the jurisdiction, before the Court seized of the suit and not within the scope of this revision petition which is primarily from the order imposing the condition for the grant of leave to defend the A suit as on the question of jurisdiction there must be a finding by the trial Court to be revised here. This civil revision in view of the position taken up by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted to the extent of the modification of the condition for the grant oil leave to defend the suit as expressed in the above‑said ad interim order by this Court. There is no order as to costs. M.Y.H./K‑95/L Order accordingly