1987 PLP 399 (SCMR)
DIN MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 399 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | DIN MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 399 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 399 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 399 (SCMR) (DIN MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record with Abdul Basit, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑2‑1986 in R.S.A. No. 948 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.6(2)‑‑District Judge authorizing Additional District Judge to receive plaints in first class suits till arrival of Administrative Civil Judge‑‑Power to entrust his function in such regards to Additional District Judge, vesting in District Judge under S. 6(2), civil Courts Ordinance, 1962‑ Plaint in such case, held, was properly prosecuted by respondents before Additional District Judge on the date when limitation had not yet expired‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave is whether the suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for pre‑emption was barred by time. The sale which gave rise to the suit was made by a registered deed, dated 2‑9‑1971. The suit was instituted on 1‑9‑1972 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. It was then transferred to the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala, on 9‑9‑1972. The case of the petitioner is that the plaint could not be directly entertained by the Additional District Judge and for that reason it should be taken to have been presented only on 9‑9‑1972 when it reached the Court of Administrative Civil Judge. On the last mentioned date the limitation for filing the suit stood expired.
2. It appears that on account of certain promotions no Civil Judge exercising first class powers was available at Gujranwala when the civil Courts reopened after the long vacation on 1‑9‑1972. Faced with this situation the District Judge by an order, dated 31‑8‑1972 authorised the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala to receive plaints in first class suits from 1st to 8th September, 1972 or till the arrival of the Administrative Civil Judge. In the presence of this order it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Additional District Judge was not competent to entertain the plaint of the respondents on 1‑9‑1972.
3. It is then contended by the petitioner that the District Judge was not competent to authorize the Additional District Judge to receive plaints. When asked if the District Judge was himself competent to receive the plaints being the Court of original jurisdiction in the District, the learned counsel replied in the affirmative. This being so, the District Judge had the power under section 6(2) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 to entrust his function in this regard to the Additional District Judge also. In the circumstances the attack on the delegation of this function by him in favour of the Additional District Judge on 31‑8‑1972 cannot be sustained. Thus, the plaint was properly presented by the respondents before the Additional District Judge on 1‑9‑1972 when admittedly the limitation had not yet expired.
4. For the reasons stated above, the prayer for leave to appeal is refused S.Q. Leave refused