1993 PLP 2555 (MLD)

The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the respondent filed a suit being Suit No.4064 of 1983 in the Court of XXVIIth Senior Civil Judge Second Class, Karachi for declaration and injunction. The case of the respondent as set out in the plaint, was that the petitioner No.1 is a holder of entitlement certificate issued by the Central Board of Revenue, Lahore for‑ 2123 Produce Index Units of agricultural land against her verified claim pertaining to the agricultural land situated in Deh 337, Taluka Jamesabad, Kot Ghulam Muhammad, District Tharparkar. It is further case of the respondent that on 28‑10‑1969 at Karachi, petitioner No.1 being owner of the aforesaid agricultural land entered into a sale agreement with the respondent for a consideration of Rs.7,200 whereby the respondent paid Rs.1,000 as part payment of the sale consideration. On 11‑5‑1970 respondent further paid Rs3,000 to the petitioner No.1 towards sale consideration of the land in question. The petitioner No.1 in lieu thereof acknowledged the receipt in writing duly witnessed by her husband, petitioner No.1 It is further case of the respondent that on 12‑5‑1970 petitioner No.1 also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent in respect of the aforesaid land which is also duly witnessed by her husband, petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 was quite unable to look after the management of her land because of cases pending for allotment and settlement of the said land in Sindh, therefore the respondent was empowered to obtain the land in Sindh against her entire 2123 Produce Index Units. On 21‑7‑1973 plaintiff/respondent further paid Rs.1,000 to the petitioner No.1 in lieu thereof the petitioner No.1 also executed receipt duly witnessed by her husband, petitioner No.2. It is the further case of the respondent that petitioner No.1 simultaneously executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her husband, petitioner No.2 empowering him to execute sale‑deed in respect of the entire agricultural land measuring 121.13 acres settled against 2123 Produce Index Units, situated in Deh 337, Taluka Jamesabad, Kot Ghulam Muhammad, District Tharparkar. It is further case of the respondent that on 26‑10‑1974 he has also paid the remaining balance of Rs.2,000 to the petitioner No.1 who in lieu thereof executed receipt duly witnessed by her husband and thus respondent paid the entire sale conisderation of the land in question to the petitioner No.1. It is admitted by the petitioner No. 1 in the suit that she had no interest or claim over the said land. It is further case of the respondent that after payment of the entire sale consideration of the land in question and having fully performed his part of contract obtained a loan from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan for development of the land and invested the same for the said purpose by mortgaging the same with the Bank. The respondent received notice dated 15‑10‑1983 from the counsel of the petitioner No.1 whereby he came to know that the petitioner No.1, under the influence of her husband, petitioner No.2, has cancelled the General Power of Attorney of the respondent having gone dishonest and backed out from her transaction of sale of the land in question after receiving the entire sale consideration from the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent filed the above suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioners contested the suit. It appears that after service of summons of the suit, the, petitioners sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent then also moved application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint. However, before the application of the respondent, for amendment of the plaint, the trial Court ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for want of jurisdiction. This order-dated 25‑4‑1984 was also upheld in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 129 of 1984 before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi but the same was dismissed in limine on 8‑7‑1984. Accordingly the Revision Petition No. 218 of 1984 was filed in this Court and the same was disposed of by an order dated 26‑3‑1985 directing the trial Court first to dispose of the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and thereafter application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. be considered and at that time the petitioner No. 1 raised another point as to the maintainability of the suit etc. It appears that the trial Court allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by order dated 12‑3‑1986 and permitted the respondent to amend the plaint. This order was assailed in Civil Revision No. 18 of 1986 but with no result. The petitioners, however, moved another application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on 28‑1‑1986. In the meantime there was another round of litigation. The trial Court while deciding the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., came to the conclusion that the suit of the respondent was not triable at Karachi and so by order dated 12‑12‑1988 the plaint was ordered to be returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. This order has been questioned in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 1989 before the District Judge, Karachi South. This Misc. Appeal was dismissed as stated in earlier part of this order. Mr. Aziz Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioners has raised the following three contentions:‑‑‑ (1)??????? The suit is barred by time. (2) Court‑fees has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act. (3) The Court has no jurisdiction (pecuniary as well as territorial). I have heard Mr. Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent in person. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also relevant material and case‑law. (1) While reverting to the first contention of the learned counsel that the suit is barred by time is devoid of force. A perusal of the plaint shows that this is a suit for declaration and injunction and not for specific performance of contract. (2) While reverting to the second contention of the learned counsel that the court‑fee has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of Court Fees Act, is also devoid of force. It is an admitted position that the sale agreement was only for Rs. 7,200 and the court‑fee is not payable upto Rs. 25,000. (3) While reverting to the last contention, the Court has no jurisdiction, has no substance. This point was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Qadir v. Meer Ashraf and others (1982 CLC 110) as well as 1989 CLC 1252. It is an admitted position that the contract was entered into ai Karachi. The petitioner No.1 not only received the entire sale consideration ai Karachi but issued receipt at Karachi. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner No.1 executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney as well as Special Power of Attorney at Karachi and notice for revocation of General Power of Attorney was issued at Karachi and received at Karachi by the respondent. In view of the cases referred to hereinabove and the finding of the Court at Karachi has jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 1, therefore, uphold the judgment before me. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 17‑2‑1993 passed by me dismissing the revision on conclusion of the arguments. H.B.T./R‑240/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.