P L D 1978 Lahore 1053 (PLP)
Before Munawwar Elahee Rana, J Versus LALA AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1978 Lahore 1053 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | --- S. 9-Jurisdiction, pecuniary-Plaintiff valuing suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, Civil Judge II Class seized of case requiring plaintiffs to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and to make up deficiency-Plaintiff's correcting valuation and fixing it at Rs. 28,500-Additional District Judge to revision believing value of suit as being Rs. 28,500 returning petition stating same as beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction-Valuation for purposes of court-fee alone being amended and remaining same, i.e., Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, return of revision petition for want of jurisdiction, held, against law-District Judge, held further, to see whether suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge II Class and order under revision before him passed by a competent Court.-Court-fee-Jursidiction- |
| Bench Members | Munawwar Elahee Rana, J |
| Parties | Before Munawwar Elahee Rana, J Versus LALA AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | --- S. 9-Jurisdiction, pecuniary-Plaintiff valuing suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, Civil Judge II Class seized of case requiring plaintiffs to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and to make up deficiency-Plaintiff's correcting valuation and fixing it at Rs. 28,500-Additional District Judge to revision believing value of suit as being Rs. 28,500 returning petition stating same as beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction-Valuation for purposes of court-fee alone being amended and remaining same, i.e., Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, return of revision petition for want of jurisdiction, held, against law-District Judge, held further, to see whether suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge II Class and order under revision before him passed by a competent Court.-[Court-fee-Jursidiction] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Lahore 1053 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: --- S. 9-Jurisdiction, pecuniary-Plaintiff valuing suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, Civil Judge II Class seized of case requiring plaintiffs to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and to make up deficiency-Plaintiff's correcting valuation and fixing it at Rs. 28,500-Additional District Judge to revision believing value of suit as being Rs. 28,500 returning petition stating same as beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction-Valuation for purposes of court-fee alone being amended and remaining same, i.e., Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, return of revision petition for want of jurisdiction, held, against law-District Judge, held further, to see whether suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge II Class and order under revision before him passed by a competent Court.-[Court-fee-Jursidiction] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1978 Lahore 1053 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- S. 9-Jurisdiction, pecuniary-Plaintiff valuing suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, Civil Judge II Class seized of case requiring plaintiffs to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and to make up deficiency-Plaintiff's correcting valuation and fixing it at Rs. 28,500-Additional District Judge to revision believing value of suit as being Rs. 28,500 returning petition stating same as beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction-Valuation for purposes of court-fee alone being amended and remaining same, i.e., Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, return of revision petition for want of jurisdiction, held, against law-District Judge, held further, to see whether suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge II Class and order under revision before him passed by a competent Court.-Court-fee-Jursidiction- bench comprising: Munawwar Elahee Rana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Lahore 1053 (PLP) (Before Munawwar Elahee Rana, J Versus LALA AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad Malik and Nawazish All Asadi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
S. 9-Jurisdiction, pecuniary-Plaintiff valuing suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, Civil Judge II Class seized of case requiring plaintiffs to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and to make up deficiency-Plaintiff's correcting valuation and fixing it at Rs. 28,500-Additional District Judge to revision believing value of suit as being Rs. 28,500 returning petition stating same as beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction-Valuation for purposes of court-fee alone being amended and remaining same, i.e., Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction, return of revision petition for want of jurisdiction, held, against law-District Judge, held further, to see whether suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge II Class and order under revision before him passed by a competent Court.-[Court-fee-Jursidiction]- Rafiq Ahmad Malik and Nawazish All Asadi for Petitioner. Lala and others have valued their suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. The suit is being tried by the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahau-ud-Din who has presently Second Class powers. The plaintiffs-respondents have been required by him to correct the valuation of their suit for purposes of court-fee and make up the deficiency by 30-10-1977. In compliance with the order, the plaintiffs have corrected the valuation and fixed it at Rs. 28,500. It was against that order that the petitioner bad filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, but, believing that the value of the suit was Rs. 28,500, he returned the petition stating that it was beyond his, pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, presented the revision petition to this Court. 2. It may, in the first instance, he pointed out that it was the valuation for purposes of court-fee which was amended, and that for purposes o jurisdiction remained the same, i. e. Rs. 24,000. In the circumstances, the return of the revision petition by the learned Additional District Judge for want of jurisdiction, was certainly against law. It may further be noticed that value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 24,000. A question would arise whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Mandi Bahau-ud-Din, but it islor the learned Additional District Judge to see whether the order under revision before him is passed by a competent Court. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat is set aside and the case is sent back to him for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. S. A. H. Petition accepted.