Civil Court

Civil courts are not to conduct a fresh trial to re-determine factual controversies already adjudicated by statutory authorities, unless order assailed is shown to be without lawful authority or is based on no evidence or suffers from jurisdictional defect or is a result of mala fide.

Respondents published a false speech/report in a Daily Newspaper, which caused harm to the reputation, dignity, honor and business of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs claimed damages, and Trial Court decreed the suit

Validity

Under Defamation Ordinance 2002, the power vests only in the District Court

Section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, prescribes the remedy before District Court

Said section has no ouster clause regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit for defamation

Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction could be invoked in all civil matters unless its jurisdiction was expressly or impliedly barred by statute

Appellate Court ignored such aspect of the case while passing the impugned judgment

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court to try a suit of civil nature or on the maintainability of a suit envisaged by section 9 or clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. is that which is created either expressly or impliedly by some statutory law enacted by the legislature

Courts in Pakistan, cannot import an implied bar from another country's jurisprudence.

In the present case none of the private parties had alleged and showed that they (or their stated predecessors-in-interest) were the recorded owners of the subject lands either under the land revenue or under any other law, nor had they relied upon any official record of the Government or of its predecessor-in-interest (the State of Swat) in support of their claims

Private parties had based their claims on private documents or on mere assertions

Private parties did not produce nor referred to any document which pre-dated the Notification through which the subject area was declared to be a protected forest, nor any after the Notification's issuance; they also did not prefer a claim to the settlement authorities, nor challenged the record of rights prepared in the year 1986

Record which was produced or referred to by them showed that the Forest Department of the Government was the owner of the subject lands

Private parties were also effectively assailing the survey of the land and the determination of the boundaries of the Forest Department of the Government which had been undertaken

Assailing the same was also not within the jurisdiction of the civil courts

Private parties did not allege that the issuance of the Notification was mala fide or without jurisdiction, or that an order was passed against them which was coram non judice, which may have enabled them to access the courts

Furthermore the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002 did provide a remedy to the private parties, but it was not availed

Private parties had sought the constitution of the Forest Settlement Board for the re-determination of a forty-year-old matter; a rebuttable presumption of legality attached to thirty-year-old documents produced from proper custody

High Court had legally erred in referring the private parties to the civil court for the adjudication of matters over which the civil court did not have jurisdiction

Appeals filed by the private parties were dismissed, while those filed by the Government were allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of a suit for damages on the ground of loss of reputation and defamation was expressly barred by S. 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon District Court to adjudicate upon such matters

Special law excluded general law and where special tribunal or Court was established to hear and decide a dispute, which was contemplated by the special law, then jurisdiction of Courts constituted under general law were ousted from exercising powers of same nature

Plaintiff might have a good case of malicious prosecution as he claimed to have been acquitted of the charge after full-fledged trial in FIR lodged under S. 39 of Electricity Act, 1910 by Trial Court and appeal against acquittal was dismissed by High Court

Plaintiff did not possess any authorization on behalf of the Hotel to sue defendants for damages and compensation

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff for recovery of outstanding rent

Validity

If appellant / defendant was in possession of rented premises and was a defaulter in payment of rent to respondent / plaintiff, proper course available to respondent / plaintiff was to invoke jurisdiction of Rent Controller under the provisions of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, instead of invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court on the principle of balance of probabilities, as the same suffered from material irregularities and factual infirmities

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Civil court is required to decide matters concerning civil disputes until and unless such jurisdiction is taken away by implied or expressed legislation.

In the present case, civil courts below committed material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction with respect to evacuee property

High Court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 held that Courts below lacked jurisdiction and rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C

Revision petition was allowed in circumstances with the direction that the parties may, if advised, approach appropriate authorities, having jurisdiction to determine and decide their rights, claims and respective obligations.

Civil Court is Court of ultimate jurisdiction with regard to civil right, duty or obligation unless the jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred

Provision of S.9, C.P.C. only confers jurisdiction upon Court and does not grant a substantive right of action.

Such objections unless raised before the Court of first instance "at the earliest possible opportunity" were not even considered by the appellate or revisional Court

Appellate or revisional Court would only consider such objections provided all three conditions as set down in S. 21, C.P.C. were met; firstly, objection as to territorial jurisdiction was raised in the Court of first instance; secondly, such objection was raised at the earliest opportunity and in case the issues were settled, before settlement of issue; and, thirdly, there had been consequent failure of justice.

Civil court at place "Q" in consideration of fact that mining lease was situated in place "D" returned the plaint to be presented before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, which order was maintained by the District Judge

High Court, however, concluded that "the matter in issue pertained to an area of some mining lease and rights thereon; that it did not directly relate to right and interest in the immoveable property, thus suit could be filed at the place where the cause of action in whole or in part had arisen, and that the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was not timely pressed by the defendant, and such conduct amounted to waiver

Consequently, the High Court directed civil court at place "Q" to proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Legality

Mining lease meant rights and interest in mines and minerals in and on the surface of earth or land

Mines and minerals were regarded as moveable property

Rights and interest in mines and mineral on or in the surface of land was separate and distinct from "rights to or interest in immoveable property" within the contemplation of clause (d) of S. 16, C.P.C.

All mines and minerals were always deemed to be the property of Government, irrespective of fact that title to surface land vested in an individual, certain department or any other authority

High Court had rightly held that no rights and interest in the immoveable property was involved in the present case

Defendant instead of raising objections as to territorial jurisdiction of the civil court, engaged into a long drawn battle in the High Court and Supreme Court, and was ultimately driven to Trial Court to contest the suit on merits

Written statement was filed by the defendant with considerable delay, raising issue of territorial jurisdiction

Although issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised before settlement of issues but not at the earliest opportunity

Since the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was not raised promptly before the civil court at place "Q" as required under S. 21, C.P.C., and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the defendant, therefore civil court at place "Q" was competent to decide the controversy and had the requisite jurisdiction

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.

Bar of jurisdiction as mentioned in Ss. 29 & 31 of Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 is not an absolute bar

Civil court is court of plenary jurisdiction and where rights of anyone are infringed, has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter within the framework of law

Objection to jurisdiction of civil court has to be raised before Trial Court at the earliest, especially through written statement.

Parties to the contract had amended the contract so as to introduce a price adjustment formula in the contract to cater for the price hike

Company (contractor) moved the civil court to make the award rule of the court contending that the amendments were made with mutual consent and Interim Payment Certificates (I.P.C.) raised by the company were duly certified by the engineer for which partial payment was made to the company

Company further submitted that Dispute Review Expert (DRE) and sole arbitrator were justified because the purpose of introducing the price adjustment formula in the contract through amendments was to assist in mitigating the effects of the increase in the cost of the basic construction material that had occurred since the commencement of the project

Validity

Fact that parties had introduced price adjustment formula and partial payment was made to the company was not disputed but remaining amount of Interim payment certificates was withheld in view of meeting of Executive Board which decided that benefit of price adjustment was not effective retrospectively

Dispute Review Expert recommended the remaining payment declaring that Principal (authorities) could not thrust its Executive Board's decision on the company

Witnesses of Principal before sole arbitrator admitted that during the pendency of contract, substantial rise in cost of construction material was witnessed

Sole arbitrator was cognizant that the amendments were executed between the parties voluntarily

Sole arbitrator was of the view that authorities could not wriggle out of its obligations

Sole arbitrator took into consideration the fact that first amendment was stated to be retrospective, whereas other (second) amendment was in continuation of the first amendment, thus making both amendments to be an integral part of the contract from its very inception

Sole arbitrator did not find any reason to declare the amendments in the contract as void as these amendments were partially given effect to by the authorities

Principal (Authorities) did not identify the matter before civil court that had been allegedly left undecided by the sole arbitrator and did not even specify the document or piece of evidence that would have caused sole arbitrator to come to a different conclusion

Civil court was conscious of the scope of its powers while hearing objections to an arbitration award that it could not carry out reappraisal of the entire evidence produced by the parties before the sole arbitrator like a court of appeal and held that the sole arbitrator had not committed any misconduct in rendering the arbitration award

Decision of the Executive Board of Principal (Authority) was taken much after the said amendments, therefore, the Dispute Review Expert the sole arbitrator and the civil court were correct in concurrently holding that the said decision of Executive Board could not be considered as a part of the contract between the parties

Amendments to a contract during its currency might be made for a variety of reasons, and there need not be consideration for each and every amendment to the contract independently

Reappraisal of evidence by the court was impermissible and award of arbitrator was final which could be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in Ss.30 & 33 of the Act

Interference would be available if there existed a total perversity in the award or award was based on wrong proposition of law

Sole arbitrator had not misconducted himself

Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Question of validity or otherwise of a gift mutation was not the domain of the revenue hierarchy but fell exclusively within the plenary jurisdiction of the civil court

Disputed questions of fact could not be entertained by revenue hierarchy.

In either of litigation, ex parte decree was passed in favour of plaintiffs, and land in question was mutated in their names

Defendants assailed the mutation before revenue authorities on the plea of fraud, and Provincial Board of Revenue decided the matter in their favour

Plaintiffs once again filed declaratory suit, which was rejected by Trial Court on the ground that already a decree had been passed in favour of plaintiffs regarding suit-land and jurisdiction of civil court was barred under S.172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Validity

Jurisdiction of civil court to rectify wrong done or entries made in Revenue Record could not be excluded merely by operation of S.172, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Jurisdiction of civil court was only barred in respect of those matters or functions which had been assigned to Revenue Court

Reasons weighed with Trial Court was that plaintiffs were holding an ex parte decree in their favour and there was no justification in law to file another suit on same cause of action

Trial Court was also influenced by impression that Revenue Record was corrected by revenue authorities and after decision of Board of Revenue jurisdiction was not available with civil court

Such grounds on the basis of which plaintiffs were non-suited were not available and plaint could not be rejected under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Fact that plaintiffs were holding civil court decree in their hand was not a relevant ground to non-suit them

When order was passed by Board of Revenue, fresh suit had become competent

Whether plaint was hit by principle of res judicata or not, could only be determined after holding trial and in no other manner

Both the courts below committed illegalities and irregularities ad initiaitum in reaching the conclusion

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits.

Every presumption should invariably be made in favour of jurisdiction of civil court and all laws touching upon usual jurisdiction of the case should be construed strictly

Ouster of jurisdiction of civil court not to be interfered until and unless word used in relevant statute makes it clear that intention was to take away jurisdiction in specific terms.

Scope stated.

Civil Courts have ultimate jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all suits unless barred as per S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Order passed by Settlement Authorities under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, attains finality if the same is not challenged in the hierarchy and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction either to determine the character of property under the law or entitlement of a person for allotment on account of the statutory bar

Civil Courts are not competent to entertain the suit involving disputes of title relating to the evacuee property.

Jurisdiction-Bar not available to petitioners claiming to be tenants but not plaintiffs.-[Jurisdiction].

Jurisdiction-Principle that where a statute creates a right and also provides machinery for its enforcement resort must be had to procedure prescribed in statute creating right for its enforcement and jurisdiction of civil Courts barred in such matters-Held, an old principle recognised in England since ancient times.-[Jurisdiction]

Civil Courts-Jurisdiction-Tax assessed on joint family-Partition of family-Suit by minor members for declaration that properties allotted to them are not liable for tax due by family-Maintainability-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 67.

Civil Court -Jurisdiction in income-tax matters-Civil suits challenging validity of income-tax proceedings-When maintainable-Principles considered-Re-assessment-Assessment of wrong person

Proceedings .for re-assessment of person really liable Maintainability-Transfer of cases-Scope of subsections (5) & (7-A) of S. 5-Place of assessment-Omission to object at proper stage-Water-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 5(5), 34, 64 & 67.

Exclusion of-Whether could be inferred from mere provision in statute of an alternative machinery for determination of rights or liabilities created by the statute-Bar created by either S. 67, Income-tax Act, (XI of 1922) or S. 65, Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act (IV of 1944)

Not absolute or unqualified.