1999 PLP 87 (CLC)
MUREED HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 87 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry and Ahmed Nawaz Malik, JJ |
| Parties | MUREED HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 87 (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 1999 PLP 87 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry and Ahmed Nawaz Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 87 (CLC) (MUREED HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Athar‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.
- Abdul Qayyum Bhatti for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 16 & 96‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Pecuniary jurisdiction‑‑‑Where original jurisdictional value was Rs.2,00,000 first appeal would lie before District Court and not before High Court‑‑‑Amount described in original plaint should be taken into account for determining pecuniary jurisdiction‑‑‑Amount of Rs.20,00,000 (twenty lacs) having inadvertently been mentioned in amended plaint through clerical mistake, appeal was transmitted to District Court for disposal.
Judgment & Decree
AHMAD NAWAZ MALIK, J.‑‑‑During the course of hearing of this regular first appeal, it has been disclosed that the original jurisdictional value is Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs), according to which the first appeal would lie to the learned District Judge. It appears that inadvertently when amended plaint was filed, the jurisdictional value in the relevant column was described as Rs.20,00,
000. To determine pecuniary jurisdiction, the amount described in the original plaint is to be taken into account and if amended plaint has been filed then unless an amendment has been permitted, any description without permission of the Court in the amended plaint is not considered. It appears that some clerical or typographical mistake has been made and the amount was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.20,00,
000. To determine pecuniary jurisdiction, original plaint is the basis to determine the appellate. forum. Accordingly, the appeal would lie before the learned District Judge. Office is, therefore, directed: to transmit the same as well as the record to the District Judge, Muzaffargarh However, keeping in view the time consumed in disposal of the appeal on account of the aforesaid error, the learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal within 2 months after the receipt of this order. This appeal stands disposed of. A.A./M‑797/L Orders accordingly