1984 PLP 1275 (CLC)

S. 10-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); S. 16-Civil Judge, in absence of any direction to contrary, can competently exercise jurisdiction within limits of district where he is posted, for purposes of S. 16, C. P. C.-Territorial jurisdiction of administrative Civil Judge for purposes of S. 16, C. P. C. is co-extensive with local limits of District and in absence of any direction to contrary by High Court, administrative Civil Judge can validly exercise jurisdiction even in regard to cases pertaining to immovable property located in Tehsil of that District.-[Jurisdiction]. S. 10-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 16-High Court Lahore Letter No. 886-Gaz./VI. M (8) (6), dated 28th January, 1967- Direction to the contrary by High Court-Letter from High Court addressed to District Judge intimating that High Court has agreed to his suggestion to withdraw option to people of a Tehsil to institute their cases either at District headquarter or at Tehsil-Such intima tion, held, does not amount to a direction to the contrary as envisaged in S. 10 (2), West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 but was just an order regarding distribution of work for sake of administrative convenience amongst Civil Judges posted in district-Such letter cannot take away jurisdiction of other Civil Judges in district. [Jurisdiction]. Ahmad Ali and another v. Muhammad Ashraf etc. N L R 1979 Civil Lah. 580 ; Sharam Singh v. Sadhu Singh A I R 1928 Lah. 484 and Madho Ram v. Dharm Singh and another A I R 1930 Lah. 394 distinguished. --Ss. 16 & 24-Institution of suit in Court of Civil Judge when that Court possessed requisite territorial jurisdiction for purposes of S. 16-District Judge, held, competent to transfer suit from one Court of competent jurisdiction to another Court of competent jurisdiction within his District--Such suit to be deemed to have been instituted on date when it was originally instituted in Court of Civil Judge and not on date when it was received by transfer in Court of other Civil Judge-Such suit cannot be considered as barred by time-No exception can be taken to order of District Judge transferring case in circumstances. This First Appeal is directed against the order, dated 6th December, 1981 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. 3. Shahbaz Ahmad, etc. the appellants herein, purchased agricultural land measuring 88 Kanals and 8 Marlas situate in village Kong, Tehsil Daska, of Sialkot District, vide registered sale-deed dated 28th March, 1967 for ostensible sale price of Rs. 55,000. 3. Muhammad Shafi etc. the respondents herein, who are residents of Mohallah Mubarikpura, Sialkot City, filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid land by pre-emption on 27th March, 1968 in the Court of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot instead of Civil Judge, Daska. The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, directed the registration of the case in the Civil Revision on 28th March, 1968 and passed orders for issuance of summonses for settlement of the issues to the appellants. The appellants, in their written statement filed before the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, raised an objection challenging the territorial jurisdic tion of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot. The suit remained pending in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, till 9th January, 1969 when the learned Administrative Civil Judge forwarded the records of the case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot, requesting him to transfer the case to the Court of Civil Judge, Daska. The learned District Judge, Sialkot, accordingly passed orders on 11th January, 1969 withdrawing the case from the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, and transferring the same to the Court of Civil Judge, Daska, for trial and decision. Parties put. an appearance before the learned Civil Judge, Daska, for the first time on 29th January, 1969. In the mean time, the appellants filed a Revision Petition before this Court challenging the order of the learned District Judge whereby the suit was transferred from the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, to that of the Civil Judge, Daska. After some time, however, the appellants withdrew the Revision Peti tion and filed an application before the learned Civil Judge, Daska, seeking dismissal of the respondents' suit on the ground that the same was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction long after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. 4. The application was resisted by the respondents. The learned Civil Judge, Daska, however, after hearing the parties in regard to the said appli cation accepted the application on 25th September, 1974 and dismissed the respondents' suit as time-barred. 5. The respondents preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was disposed of by the then learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide his order dated 3rd December, 1975 whereby he remand ed the case to the Court below with a direction that a preliminary issue on the question of limitation be framed and decided afresh in accordance with law. 6. The order, dated 3rd December, 1975 was impugned through a First Appeal before this Court. The appeal was allowed and the case was remand ed to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 7. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, heard the parties and vide his order dated 6th December, 1981 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, Daska, dated 25th September, 1974 and remanded the case under Order XLI, rule 23-A. C. P. C. to the learned Civil Judge, Daska, directing him to decide the suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. 8. The aforesaid order dated 6th December, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, has thus been impugned through the present appeal. 9. By virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit for the possession of immovable property has, subject to the pecuniary limitation, to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such immovable property is situate. "10. Local limits of jurisdiction.-(I) the local limits of the jurisdic tion of a Civil Judge shall be such as the High Court may define. (2) When the High Court posts a Civil Judge to a district, the local limits of the district shall, in the absence any direction to the contrary, be deemed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction." 11. In the light of the provisions of section 10, it becomes clear that in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, a Civil Judge posted in the district of Sialkot can competently exercise jurisdiction within the limits of Sialkot district for the purposes of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction for they purposes of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, was evidently co-extensive with the local limits of the' Sialkot district and in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the' High Court, he could validly exercise jurisdiction even in regard to cases pertaining to immovable property located in Daska tehsil of Sialkot' district. "But Narowal is a Sub-Division of the same district and normally a Civil Judge appointed in the district has jurisdiction over the entire district and it is only for sake of administrative convenience that particular category of suits are assigned to him. This does not take away the jurisdiction of the other Civil Judges in the district of Sialkot to deal with .the matter in band." 13. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the respondents that vide letter No. 886-GazIVI. M. 8 (6), dated 28th January, 1967 addressed by the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, to the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot, the option given to the Daska people to institute their cases either at Sialkot or Daska had been withdrawn by the High Court, and in this manner the High Court made a direction to the contrary within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordi nance, 1962. 14. It has further been argued that since this case was instituted in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, after the issuance of the aforesaid direction by the High Court, the Court of the learned Adminis trative Civil Judge, Sialkot, did not possess territorial jurisdiction with regard to cases of immovable property situate in Daska Tehsil and, therefore, the suit instituted by the respondents on 27th March, 1968 in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, cannot be deemed to have been institu ted before a Court of competent jurisdiction. This suit could not lawfully be transferred under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned District Judge, Sialkot. This suit came up for hearing for the first time before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 29th January, 1969 but by that time it had become time-barred. 15. Reliance on behalf of the appellants has been placed on Ahmad Ali and another v. Muhammad Ashraf and other (N L R 1979 Civil Lah. 580) wherein it was held that in a case in which a Civil Judge initially had no jurisdiction to entertain, the learned District Judge was not competent under section 24, C. P. C. to order the transfer of the suit from his Court to a Court of competent jurisdiction. 16. Similarly, in Sharam Singh v. Sadhu Singh (A I R 1928 Lah. 484), it was held that where a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to try a suit then it has to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order VII, rule 10, C. P. C. "Order VII, rule 10 expressly provides that when a suit is instituted in a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it, then the Court must return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having jurisdic tion. The provisions are wide enough to cover all cases where the Court is unable to entertain the suit for want of jurisdiction, what ever may be the nature of the objection to its jurisdiction. The date of institution of the suit is; therefore, the date on which the plaint is presented to a Court having jurisdiction to try the same." 18. There can be no doubt, whatever, about the legality and soundness of the proposition enunciated in the afore-quoted judicial precedents. But we have to see as to whether the Court of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, lacked territorial jurisdiction when the suit was instituted in that Court by the respondents on account of the aforementioned letter of the High Court, dated 28th January, 1967. 19. As already observed, ordinarily the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge posted in a district are co-extensive with the local limits of that district under section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. However, if there is any direction to the contrary by the High Court, then the local limits of his jurisdiction would be in accordance with the said direction. In the circumstances of the under consideration case, through letter dated 28th January, 1967, the High Court simply intimated the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot, that his suggestion was accepted to the effect that in future all cases relating to Daska tehsil would be instituted at Daska only. This intimation does not amount to a direction to the con trary as envisaged in subsection(2) of section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. This was just an order regarding distribution of work for the sake of administrative convenience amongst Civil Judges posted in a district who, otherwise exercised jurisdiction in the district of Sialkot. Such an order does not take away jurisdiction of other Civil Judges in the district of Sialkot and does not tantamount to a direction to the contrary contemplated by section 10 (2). 20. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that at the time of the institution of the suit by the respondents in the Court of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, on 27th March, 1 968 the said learned Court was possessed of the requisite territorial jurisdiction for the purposes of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 24 ibid, District Judge can competently transfer a suit from one Court of competent jurisdiction to another Court of competent jurisdiction within his district. No illegality was, therefore, committed by the learned District Judge while transferring the respondents' suit from the Court of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, to that of the Civil Judge, Daska, for administrative convenience on- 11th January, 1969. The suit, in the circum stances, shall be deemed to have been instituted on 27th March, 1968 when it was originally instituted in the Court of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, and not on 29th January, 1969 when it was received by transfer in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Daska. The suit cannot, therefore, be considered as barred by time as has been held by the learned Civil Judge, Daska, in his order dated 25th September, 1974. No exception can therefore, be taken to the impugned order, dated 6th December, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. This appeal, there fore, fails and is dismissed with costs. 21. The records shall be sent back immediately to the Court of Civil Judge, Daska, for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the direc tions contained in the order dated 6th December, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. As this is pretty old case, the learned Civil Judge, Daska, shall ensure its disposal within four months. M. Z. M Appeal dismissed.