Jurisdiction of court

Every Court prior to taking cognizance and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court and if it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue.

Appellant/ accused, who was Investigating Officer in a criminal case in a pending petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused of that case registered under S.489-F, P.P.C., before Sessions Court, was directed to produce said accused before the Court and on his failure many times he was issued a warning and then a show cause notice as to why he should not be sentenced to seven days imprisonment under S.174, P.P.C. for not complying with the orders of the Court, but the appellant again did not appear

Thus, appellant was convicted and sentenced for seven days

Validity

Trial Court had sentenced the appellant under S.174 of P.P.C. for his failure to produce the accused against whom notice was issued on a petition for cancellation of his bail

S.174 Cr.P.C falls in category of offences mentioned in S.195, subsection (1), clause (a), Cr.P.C therefore, Trial Court was not authorized to sentence the appellant by itself, rather complaint should have been forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and on receiving such complaint concerned Magistrate is not required to record statement of the Judge as mentioned in S.200 of Cr.P.C., rather has to the process contained in S.200 to 204, Cr.P.C., and provisions relating to trial as the case may be

Thus, the Trial Court was not legally authorized to pass the impugned order

Consequently, it was set aside

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Offence was committed at place "P" and Court declined to decide bail application as FIR was registered by FIA and Special Court having jurisdiction was situated at place "G"

Validity

Place of occurrence was in territorial jurisdiction of place "P", therefore, Court at place "P" as Electricity Utility Court was competent to take cognizance of the offence and conduct trial of offence under S.462-G (a), P.P.C.

Court competent to take cognizance of offence and conduct trial of case, was competent to entertain and decide petition for bail

Electricity Utility Court at place "P" was competent to entertain petition for bail and decide the same in accordance with law

In case of any doubt regarding jurisdiction to inquire into or try any offence, High Court under S.185 (1), Cr.P.C., was to decide about Court to inquire into or try the offence

High Court in exercise of powers vested under S.185 (1), Cr.P.C., decided that the Court (if otherwise competent to take cognizance) in whose territorial jurisdiction occurrence was committed i.e. place of occurrence was situated, would take cognizance of the offence and conduct trial of the case

Court of Electricity Utility Court at place "P" was Trial Court in the matter

Office objection was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner assailed arbitration award and order dismissing objections filed by him on the plea of misconduct of arbitrators

Neither any specific allegations of misconduct figured in objection filed by petitioner, nor was it reflected in evidence adduced except an assertion that he did not expect justice from arbitrators

Such assertion did not, in any way, absolve him or give a way to escape from arbitration agreement, which he at his free will had entered with respondent

Proceedings carried out by arbitrators were quasi-judicial proceedings

Court while parting with the objections or making award as rule of Court could not sit as court of appeal looking into nitty gritty of proceedings and arbitration award

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts of fora below, which did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity making the same to be unjust and unreasonable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Article 175(2) of the Constitution provides that "No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law."

Cast though it is in negative terms, this provision ought not, be read in minimalist and literalist terms

For one thing, this may seriously jeopardize or compromise the independence of the judiciary and result in a substantial erosion (and even denial) of access to justice

Further, such an approach would, among other consequences, divest the courts of jurisdiction that is regarded as inherent

Literal and minimalist reading of Art. 175(2) of the Constitution may cast doubt on this (and equivalent) provisions, which would clearly be incorrect

Conferring of jurisdiction on courts by the Constitution and the law (and since the law must ultimately find repose in the Constitution, the former in particular) does not mean only such as is expressly so conferred; it includes also, but is not limited to, all such jurisdiction as by intendment or necessary implication (especially including, on the constitutional plane, such as may be required to give full expression to constitutional provisions and principles) must be held to vest or inhere in courts of law.

No sanctity is attached to concurrent findings of the lower Courts suffering from perversity, misreading and non-reading of evidence as well as being against the law.

Although a counter claim was neither a legal set-off nor an equitable set-off, however, no law precluded a Court from treating a counter claim as a plaint, provided it contained all the necessary requisites sufficient to be treated as a plaint.

Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction in which he claimed to be owner in possession of suit land on the basis of an agreement to sell

Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in his favour

Validity

Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that on the basis of some agreement, suit for declaration was not maintainable

To seek decree for its specific performance, period of only three years per Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908, was available to institute the suit

Agreement in question was settled on 22-3-1995 and suit for specific performance on its strength could be filed till 21-3-1998, whereas while stretching it to accord decree for declaration Court was bound to satisfy that suit per Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, was instituted within six years

Suit was filed on 22-04-2002 after more than seven years and Lower Appellate Court did not attend such aspect

As per mandate of S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908, Lower Appellate Court was under obligation to scrutinize the plaint, application and appeal on the point of limitation regardless of the fact that the point of limitation was agitated by either party or not

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

No Court or Authority has inherent power to review its own order.

Whenever a suit or an application or an appeal, as the case may be, was filed contrary to the law provided, the jurisdiction of the Court ceased to exist from giving any verdict except to close the matter

Court's jurisdiction was based on the relief claimed and the Courts had powers to pass such orders as may be required for the satisfaction of decree unless any such order by express or by necessary implication was prohibited.

Constitutional Courts can indeed convert and treat one type of proceedings into another and can remit a lis to a forum or authority of competent jurisdiction for decision on merits.

No Court was to exercise any jurisdiction in any matter brought before it until and unless, such jurisdiction had been conferred upon it by the Constitution itself or under any law

Courts only exercise original, appellate, revisional, review or constitutional jurisdiction as mandated under the Constitution and the law.

Accused after his release from custody sought post arrest bail from the High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

Order for release of accused was passed by Accountability Court for want of filing Reference within 90 days of the arrest

After passing such orders by Accountability Court, reference was filed before the Court against accused

Accused filed Constitutional petition before High Court for post arrest bail and the same was pending

Accountability Court had no power to take bond from accused in terms of S. 91, Cr.P.C.

High Court directed Accountability Court to proceed with reference expeditiously and set aside the order in question

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Complainant was aggrieved of authorities not handing over possession of his illegally dispossessed property despite there being order from the High Court

Accused persons during pendency of proceedings, filed application seeking adding of parties to proceedings which was allowed by Trial Court

Validity

No provision was available in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 enabling a criminal court to exercise its jurisdiction for impleading any person even at his own as a party during proceedings while trying an offence

Trial Court while passing order failed to consider that criminal court was not conferred upon jurisdiction under any law, either to strike or add any party in pending criminal proceedings

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court as same was passed illegally, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and as such same was of no legal effect

High Court declined to interfere in orders for handing over possession of land in question to complainant as it was unchallenged and attained finality

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Better course for plaintiff was to wait for decision of forum originally set up to deal with such grouses and after culmination of all remedies provided under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 before same hierarchy, jurisdiction of civil court could definitely be invoked, if it was shown that orders passed by concerned authorities were excess or abuse of its jurisdiction

Statute provided proper procedure for grouse of petitioner who had rightly set it into motion before proper forum

Approach of Trial Court, leaving it unattended, was unwarranted whereas it should have been last resort

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Provisions of S.20(c), C.P.C. confer jurisdiction on court in a civil suit when cause of action arises wholly or in part within territorial jurisdiction of a court

Suit is competent before a court where even a part or fraction of a cause of action arises

Only contents of plaint are to be looked into in deciding such matters.

Court has to jealously guard its jurisdiction to deal with lis before it and court could proceed with matter in accordance with law.

Provisions of S.20(c), C.P.C. confer jurisdiction on court in a civil suit when cause of action arises wholly or in part within territorial jurisdiction of a court

Suit is competent before a court where even a part or fraction of a cause of action arises

Only contents of plaint are to be looked into in deciding such matters.

Plaintiff sought recovery of entire sale price and damages on grounds that land in question was not physically available

Office as well as defendant raised objection that High Court had no jurisdiction

Validity

Claim of plaintiff was severable from subject property and plaintiff was not claiming any right or interest in subject property

Plaintiff was demanding her money/sale price back together with damages if at all she was able to prove same

Jurisdiction of High Court was not ousted as defendant was resident of Karachi, sale agreement which though was no longer enforceable was also executed at Karachi and payments were also made at Karachi

Suit was maintainable in circumstances.

Provisions of S.20(c), C.P.C. confer jurisdiction on court in a civil suit when cause of action arises wholly or in part within territorial jurisdiction of a court

Suit is competent before a court where even a part or fraction of a cause of action arises

Only contents of plaint are to be looked into in deciding such matters.

Plaintiff was a Pakistan Shipping Company whose vessels were arrested by orders of court in South Africa against complaint of defendant

Plaintiff sought anti-suit injunction against defendant company on grounds that High Court adjudicating arbitration had jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunction

Plea raised by defendant was that matter was pending before court in South Africa and courts in Pakistan had no jurisdiction

Validity

Jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunction was to be exercised with very considerable caution and for that reason was probably very rarely exercised

Injunction would in such circumstances only be granted where very clearest case of oppression was made out

When other ingredients for grant of an anti-suit injunction were lacking, court could not exercise such jurisdiction

Nature of proceedings in both jurisdictions was also needed to be examined and for establishing ingredients of it being oppressive and vexatious, it ought to have been of same nature in substance

Cause of action was to be examined with care and due regard was to be given before passing of any such injunctive order which was also lacking

Since court in South Africa was already seized of the matter, there was no other proposed action in line, any exercise of jurisdiction by High Court would tantamount to transgressing norms of judicial restraint

It was but natural that it should be left with court seized of the matter to decide whether it had any jurisdiction or not

High Court observed that it was not appropriate and would be violative of principles of comity that one court would injunct another court on ground of forum non conveniens

Plaintiffs failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of anti-suit injunction

Neither balance of convenience lay in their favour nor any question of an irreparable loss arose

Defendant was not within personal jurisdiction of High Court and it was a futile exercise to pass any restraining order regarding its enforceability

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a Foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in Foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a Foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in Foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S. 4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S. 4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Plea of appellant was that he was removed from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the defunct company and his shareholding was reduced through fraudulent means and forged signatures and that defunct company still owned land, therefore, it was wrongly struck off the Register of Companies

Validity

Defunct company was rightfully struck off the Register of Companies in terms of S. 439(3), Companies Ordinance, 1984

Appellant's assertion that defunct company still owned land or that he was fraudulently removed from the position of CEO and his shareholding was reduced was a matter to be pursued in a court of competent jurisdiction and not before the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission)

Commission could not of its own volition investigate and establish whether defunct company still owned assets given the dispute between the appellant and respondent

Appellant had initially taken up the matter in the High Court but the matter was not pursued

Appeal was dismissed.

Plea raised by plaintiff was that since both parties were Pakistani citizens by origin who married in Pakistan under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1965 and their marriage was registered in Pakistan, therefore, UK law was not the applicable on parties but that of Pakistan

Validity

Parties having immigrated to and got UK nationality, were UK nationals and subject of UK laws as well as to laws of Pakistan and jurisdiction of UK courts could not be curtailed

Plaintiff could not establish any of exceptions given in S.13, C.P.C. attracted in his case

High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction as there were concurrent findings of law and fact against plaintiff which were immune from interference unless there was some gross illegality floating on surface

Plaintiff failed to point out any illegality therefore no interference was warranted by High Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

No Court could exercise any jurisdiction in any matter before it unless such jurisdiction had been conferred upon it by the Constitution itself or under any law.

Plaint can only be rejected by a court which otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain suit/plaint and decide entire lis on its merits

If during such proceedings an application has been filed by defendant for rejection of plaint on grounds mentioned under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., court having such jurisdiction can decide application either way

Once it is pleaded on behalf of defendant that court has no jurisdiction and plaint be returned under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., then no application can be entertained under O. VII, R 11, C.P.C. by the same court

By filing such application defendant submits to jurisdiction of court and waives objections to that effect and therefore, cannot press upon an application under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. for return of plaint.

Provision of S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is an enabling provision which enables National Accountability Bureau or Accountability Court to pass an express order to freeze/transfer of suspected property when such property has come to its knowledge

Provision of S. 23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is a prohibitory and penal provision intending to act as deterrence to transfer such ill-gotten property, existence of which property can be discovered after transfer

Any grievance against restraints placed both under Ss. 12 & 23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 can only be redressed by Accountability Court under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 491, Cr.P.C., can direct that any person 'illegally or improperly detained' in public or private custody within its territorial limits be set at liberty

Petition under S. 491, Cr.P.C. or a writ of habeas corpus is not ordinarily found to be competent where there is no element of illegal custody of a minor

Court can, however, in the interests of the child's welfare, pass an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction

Court while deciding such petitions does not conduct detailed inquiries or go into factual controversies

Such proceedings are summary in nature and aimed at providing immediate and efficacious relief to the aggrieved party

Orders passed in such proceedings are interim in nature and are subject to the final orders passed by a court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Defendant company sought return of plaint on grounds that courts situated in Pakistan did not have jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Upholding sanctity of contractual bargain was pivotal

Court was to give effect to 'exclusive' jurisdiction clauses unless plaintiff was able to discharge heavy burden of satisfying court that circumstances existed, not foreseen at time of execution of contract containing such a clause, that proceedings be allowed in a non-contractual forum

Plain language of 'forum selection clause' was precise, unambiguous and clear and there was no doubt that parties had intended jurisdiction of English courts to be 'exclusive'

Clause covered adjudication of grievances or cause of action disclosed and asserted in plaint

Refusal of instant application would tantamount to enable plaintiff to circumvent binding obligation, which it had undertaken at time of accepting two process letters including forum selection clause contained therein

Parties had also chosen English law as governing law and plaintiff had not raised any ground so as to justify refusal in giving effect to exclusive jurisdiction clause

Plaintiff had accepted exclusive forum selection clause voluntarily and out of free will

High Court allowed application under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. as it was just and proper to give effect to exclusive clause contained in respective process letters

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Private complaint was filed against accused (husband) by his first wife on allegations of contracting second marriage without her permission

Trial Court convicted accused but Lower Appellate Court set aside conviction on grounds that provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were not applicable to accused as he was resident of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Validity

Accused, regardless of his place of residence, held national identity card issued to him by authority under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

As long as national identity card remained valid and subsisting, accused could not claim to be a person who was not a citizen of Pakistan

Marriage was contracted between parties duly registered in Islamabad and therefore, to the extent of complainant, cause of action in context of S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had arisen in Islamabad

Lower Appellate Court did not take into consideration legal provisions of various statutes

High Court converted petition seeking special leave to appeal filed by Complainant into appeal and judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court was set aside

High Court remanded matter to Lower Appellate Court for deciding appeal afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Distinguishing feature of action in rem has always been ability of maritime claim to proceed against ship directly, which is regarded as the defendant, the ship being personified

Whereas action in personam in Admiralty jurisdiction is of the same nature as ordinarily common law action commences by summons served on a defendant which is a person, natural or juridical and not thing (res)

If technical object of suit is to establish a claim against some particular person or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defence, the action is in personam although it may concern right to or possession of a tangible thing.

Appeal is continuation of original proceedings and High Court can pass any order which Trial Court was competent to do so.

Section 31(1) of the Act was not an enabling provision, rather one which identified and defined the jurisdiction of the Court in which an award should be filed

Object of S.31(1) was to clothe a single court with jurisdiction in the matter so as to avoid conflict of jurisdiction which may arise between different courts so that all the matters pertaining to arbitration, once having been initiated and dealt with by one court, should subsequently continue to be determined by the same court.

Once Collector had made reference, the court would be incompetent to go beyond the reference to see whether petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was filed within time prescribed in proviso to S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Every court is under a duty to first determine its jurisdiction and then to proceed ahead, as any order passed without jurisdiction would be void ab initio and nullity in the eye of law.

Court may direct defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be asked to furnish security and place the same on the disposal of court as and when required and sufficient to satisfy the decree

Jurisdiction of court in attaching property before judgment is of extraordinary nature and should be exercised strictly in accordance with the time tested procedure.

Exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement cannot be ignored lightly merely at the whims of one of the parties to the contract, unless there is strong cause to displace the forum that the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute

Choice of forum and/or selection of forum have much significance

All local and foreign agreements containing choice or selection of forum clause are to be seen minutely

Two or more courts having jurisdiction to try a suit and agreement between the parties, any dispute arising between them shall be tried only by one of such courts, is not contrary to public policy, as the same would neither contravene provisions laid down in S.28 of Contract Act, 1872 nor violate in any manner provisions of Ss.9 or 20, C.P.C.

To confer jurisdiction, undeniably, is function of lawmakers.

Application for issuance of succession certificate, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on ground that predecessor was domiciled of a foreign country and amount claimed was lying abroad

Applicants contended that their predecessor was permanent resident to Pakistan and had gone abroad to earn livelihood where he was temporarily residing

Validity

Applicants and their predecessor were permanent residents of Pakistan

Correct criteria for issuance of succession certificate was domicile of the deceased at time of his death

Nothing was available on record that could show that the deceased had intended to abandon Pakistan for ever

Trial court while dismissing application filed under S.372 of Succession Act, 1925, had erred in facts and law while interpreting the word 'domicile'

Word 'domicile' had not been defined in Succession Act, 1925

In ordinary meaning 'domicile' meant the place where a man lived or had his home

Impugned order was set aside and Trial Court was directed to decide succession application on merits in accordance with law

Appeal was accepted in circumstance.

Suit having concurrently been decreed by the courts below, defendant had filed second appeal against said concurrent judgments and decrees

Counsel for defendant had raised question with regard to jurisdiction of the court, contending that property in question being situated at place 'R', jurisdiction lay with the court at place 'R' whereas suit was filed in court at place 'I' which had no jurisdiction in the matter

Defendant, after filing of suit by the plaintiffs, also filed suit for declaration and injunction against the plaintiffs at place 'G'

Defendant raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the Trial Court in her written statement

Even after the decree of that suit defendant also raised question of jurisdiction of the court in first appeal

Defendant also filed application under O. VII, R.10, C.P.C. that suit be transferred to court at place 'R' as the court at place 'I' had no jurisdiction

Held

Consent of the parties would not confer jurisdiction upon the court

Order/decree passed by the court, having no jurisdiction, was nullity in the eye of law

Court was to decide at first instance the question of jurisdiction, even though such question was not raised by the parties

Objection to the jurisdiction could be raised at any subsequent stage

Non­-fulfilment of mandatory conditions for exercise of jurisdiction before the court would render illegal its entire proceedings

In the present case the point of jurisdiction had not been properly dealt with by both the courts below

High Court accepted second appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree remitted the matter to the Trial Court at place 'I' which, after summoning the parties, would return the plaints to the plaintiffs of their respective suits in order to file same in the court of competent jurisdiction.