1995 PLP 906 (SCMR)
ISLAM DIN and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 906 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ISLAM DIN and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 906 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 906 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 906 (SCMR) (ISLAM DIN and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 30‑1‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No. 1165/D/92). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Objection to jurisdiction was neither raised before trial Court to whose jurisdiction defendants had submitted nor such objection was raised before First Appellate Court‑‑‑Objection to jurisdiction of trial Court was raised before High Court for the first time which was rightly not allowed to be raised‑‑‑Such objection being technical suit had been decreed on merits by all the Courts below against defendants‑‑‑No error of law was pointed out in the judgments and decrees of Courts below‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑The petitioners' seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 30‑1‑1993.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent, brought a suit for possession of the disputed house against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit. Several issues were framed. The evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded by the trial Court. As the subject‑matter of the suit for the purpose of valuation was Rs.50,000, therefore, the suit wars transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, who proceeded with the case and decreed the suit against the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the Additional District judge and the High Court, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the evidence of the petitioners was closed by the trial Court, who had no jurisdiction to pass an order, therefore, all proceedings conducted by him are without jurisdiction. He has submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge should have proceeded afresh. This contention has no force. The petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. They did not raise any objection either before the Senior Civil Judge, to whom the case was., transferred or before the Court of Additional District Judge, where they challenged the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge. This objection was raised before the High Court, for the first time and the same was rejected. The learn ad Single Judge (in Chambers) has observed as under:‑‑ "On a question being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that this objection was never raised by him either before the trial Court or even in appeal before the Additional District Judge. It is clear from the memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Court that order, dated 2nd April, 1990, by virtue of which evidence of the petitioners was closed, was never questioned on the ground that it was passed by a Court having no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the petitioners to raise this objection before this Court for the first time." As observed by the High Court, the objection was purely technical. On merits, the suit had been decreed against the petitioners. There is no error of law. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. AA./I‑205/S. Leave refused.