2021 PLP 1603 (MLD)
Pir ALI SHAH through Legal Representatives and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SOOMAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1603 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Pir ALI SHAH through Legal Representatives and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SOOMAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1603 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1603 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1603 (MLD) (Pir ALI SHAH through Legal Representatives and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SOOMAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaque Khoso for Respondent No.1.
- Wali Muhammad Jamari, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh
- MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.----Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter pertains to conflicting findings wherein the claim of the applicant pertaining to their inheritance was decided by the learned Trial Court in their favour after evidence. However, at the appellate stage, the matter was considered by the learned Appellate Court only on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court wherein adverse findings have been given and as such this revision may be allowed. Learned counsel for the private respondent contends that he has a good case on merits as the revenue entries challenged were claimed by the respondent in his favour. However, he concedes that the appellate Court has not considered the element of ultimate jurisdiction being available with the Civil Court and so also not having concluded to the rights of the parties based upon material available before the said Court. Learned Assistant Advocate General, also concedes that the matter be remanded to the Appellate stage for conclusion of the case on merits as parties have conceded to the point of existing jurisdiction.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XLI, R.30
Judgment when and where pronounced
Scope
Applicants contended that the matter pertained to conflicting findings wherein their claim of inheritance was decided by the Trial Court in their favour
Appellate Court only considered the point of jurisdiction of Civil Court and gave adverse findings
Respondent contended that he had a good case on merits and considered that the Appellate Court had not considered that Civil Court was the court of ultimate jurisdiction
High Court, in view of the consent of the parties, while considering that the ultimate jurisdiction was available with the Civil Court; failure of the Appellate Court to discuss the issues/rights of the parties on the basis of their evidence and the Appellate Court's failure to comply with the requirement of O.XLI, R.30, C.P.C., remanded the matter to the Appellate Court for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter pertains to conflicting findings wherein the claim of the applicant pertaining to their inheritance was decided by the learned Trial Court in their favour after evidence. However, at the appellate stage, the matter was considered by the learned Appellate Court only on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court wherein adverse findings have been given and as such this revision may be allowed. Learned counsel for the private respondent contends that he has a good case on merits as the revenue entries challenged were claimed by the respondent in his favour. However, he concedes that the appellate Court has not considered the element of ultimate jurisdiction being available with the Civil Court and so also not having concluded to the rights of the parties based upon material available before the said Court. Learned Assistant Advocate General, also concedes that the matter be remanded to the Appellate stage for conclusion of the case on merits as parties have conceded to the point of existing jurisdiction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the consent given on part of the learned counsel for the respondents and considering the ultimate jurisdiction available to the Civil Court and the failure of the learned Appellate Court to discuss the issues / rights of the parties on the basis of evidence, which was apparently present before the said Court, by its failure to comply with the requirement of under Order XLI, Rule 30, C.P.C., the matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Court to conclude the matter within a period of three (03) months from the date of this Order after hearing the parties based upon the material present before the said Court; considering the above observations and formulating the points of determination required and given the findings on merits in the matter. It may further be observed that no further notice will be required to be given to the parties in the present circumstances, who shall effect their appearance within fifteen (15) days of this order. Revision Application stands disposed of. SA/A-144/Sindh Case remanded.