2003 PLP 168 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SURYA BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 168 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SURYA BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 168 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 168 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 168 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SURYA BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.D. Naseem for Petitioner.
- Ch. Sadaqaat Ali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S‑18‑‑‑Forum of appeal‑‑‑Determination‑‑‑Return of appeal by Additional District Judge for not having pecuniary jurisdiction in view of plaintiff's admission while appearing as witness that market value of suit land was Rs.4 lacs‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Forum of appeal was to be determined according to value of suit as mentioned in the plaint‑‑‑Value of suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court‑fee in plaint had been fixed at Rs.200‑‑‑High Court accepted revision petition and set aside impugned order, resultantly appeal would be deemed to be pending before Additional District Judge for its decision on merits. Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaid Ullah and 6 others 1999 SCMR 394 fol.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 6‑7‑2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, whereby he returned the appeal to the petitioner for presentation of the same before the High Court.
2. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that‑‑ "during the course of arguments, it appears that market .value of the suit land is Rs.4,00,000 and this fact is also admitted by the plaintiff Surayya Bibi in. her statement while appearing as P.W.1. Both the counsel for the parties also conceded that market value of the suit property is more than Rs.4,00,000. "
2. Both the learned counsel for the parties on, the strength of the case reported as Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaid Ullah and 6 others (1999 SCMR 394), admit that forum of the appeal is to be determined under section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962). According to the learned counsel, the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at Rs.200, and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal, under section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. Forum of appeal was to be determined according to the value of suit as mentioned in the plaint. In the case reported as Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaid Ullah and 6 others (1999 SCMR 394), the Hon'ble Supreme Court: while interpreting the provisions of section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, has assumed that: "Forum of appeal was to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint.
3. In view of the above, this civil revision is allowed. The order dated 10‑10‑2001 of the learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, is set, aside. The appeal shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge which shall be decided on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, on 27‑2‑2002. S.A.K./M‑1223/L Revision allowed.