Original civil jurisdiction

2025 SCMR 1307 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 7Original civil jurisdictionCorporate affairs

Jurisdiction specifically vested with Company Judge under Section 7 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 cannot be ousted merely on the pretext of a factual dispute

Provision of Section 7 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 specifically provides that Company Judge has jurisdiction

Statute has authorized Company Judge to exercise jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984

Jurisdiction vested with the Court by way of statute cannot be ousted merely because the parties contend that dispute involves complicated facts, the law does not provide so.

2025 CLD 921 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 7Original civil jurisdictionCorporate affairs

Jurisdiction specifically vested with Company Judge under Section 7 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 cannot be ousted merely on the pretext of a factual dispute

Provision of Section 7 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 specifically provides that Company Judge has jurisdiction

Statute has authorized Company Judge to exercise jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance, 1984

Jurisdiction vested with the Court by way of statute cannot be ousted merely because the parties contend that dispute involves complicated facts, the law does not provide so.

2022 CLD 315 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 5Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 56(e)Original civil jurisdictionGeneral and special lawCivil Court, jurisdiction barredHawala/hundi and money laundering, suspicion of

After conducting inquiry, Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") had issued an order to freeze Bank accounts of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that such inquiry offended their fundamental rights; that notices under S.160, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and freezing of Bank accounts were mala fide/without jurisdiction; for injunction to set-aside freezing order; and for damages for loss caused to business/reputation/mental anguish

First Information Report was launched alleging that the accused had opened fake Bank accounts to route transactions which were offences under Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and also scheduled offences under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Validity

First Information Report was presented before Special Court and said Court had taken cognizance of the matter and the plaintiffs had also surrendered before the Court for pre-arrest bail

Freezing order passed by the "FIA" was subject to the orders of the Special Court

Bank accounts of the plaintiffs are movable property within the meaning of S. 7 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Said Ordinance being special law, power to lift the freezing order of the plaintiffs' Bank accounts lay exclusively with the Special Court

Question whether the transactions in the Bank accounts of plaintiffs were unlawful, would squarely fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant relief against freezing of the plaintiffs' Bank accounts was impliedly barred

High Court rejected the plaint under R. 11 of O. VII, Cr.P.C.

2022 PLD 160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 5Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 11Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 56(e)Original civil jurisdictionGeneral and special lawCivil Court, jurisdiction barredHawala/hundi and money laundering, suspicion of

After conducting inquiry, Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") had issued an order to freeze Bank accounts of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that such inquiry offended their fundamental rights; that notices under S.160, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and freezing of Bank accounts were mala fide/without jurisdiction; for injunction to set-aside freezing order; and for damages for loss caused to business/reputation/mental anguish

First Information Report was launched alleging that the accused had opened fake Bank accounts to route transactions which were offences under Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and also scheduled offences under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Validity

First Information Report was presented before Special Court and said Court had taken cognizance of the matter and the plaintiffs had also surrendered before the Court for pre-arrest bail

Freezing order passed by the "FIA" was subject to the orders of the Special Court

Bank accounts of the plaintiffs are movable property within the meaning of S.7 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Said Ordinance being special law, power to lift the freezing order of the plaintiffs' Bank accounts lay exclusively with the Special Court

Question whether the transactions in the Bank accounts of plaintiffs were unlawful, would squarely fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant relief against freezing of the plaintiffs' Bank accounts was impliedly barred

High Court rejected the plaint under R.11 of O.VII.

2018 YLR 2143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 120, O.VII, R. 10 & O. XLIX, R.3(1)Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 7Suit for declaration and injunctionReturn of plaintOriginal civil jurisdictionCity of KarachiScopeSuit property was situated at district "Jamshoro" but suit was filed in High Court at "Karachi"

Plea raised by plaintiff was that High Court at "Karachi" had original civil jurisdiction for the entire Province, therefore, it could assume jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Original jurisdiction in civil suits and proceedings vested in a District Judge without any pecuniary limit, except in Karachi Districts, where jurisdiction in civil suits exceeding Rupees 15 million was exercised by the High Court

Jurisdiction in civil suits, exercised by High Court Karachi was neither original civil jurisdiction nor extraordinary civil jurisdiction as referred to in S. 120 & O. XLIX R. 3(1), C.P.C.

High Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as property was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of High Court

Provisions of S. 120 & O. XLIX, R. 3(1), C.P.C. did not in any manner curtail or restrict jurisdiction and powers of High Court

Plaint was returned in circumstances.

2014 CLC 1123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7, proviso [as amended by S.2 of Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act (III of 2010)](Sindh) High CourtOriginal civil jurisdictionMinimum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction

Civil suits and proceedings pending in the (Sindh) High Court in its original civil jurisdiction before change in minimum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction brought about by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2010

Such suits and proceedings shall continue to be tried and decided by the (Sindh) High Court

Minimum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the (Sindh) High Court was changed/enhanced through the Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2010, which came into force on 24-2-2011

Proviso to S.7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 specifically provided that suits or proceedings pending before the (Sindh) High Court in its original civil jurisdiction prior to commencement of Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2010, shall not be affected by the change/enhancement in the minimum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the (Sindh) High Court; and all such suits and proceedings shall continue to be tried and decided by the (Sindh) High Court.

2014 CLC 725 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Original civil jurisdictionHigh Court, powers of

While exercising its original jurisdiction, High Court exercises powers of civil court.