| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1955 SLG 153 1955 SLD 153 1955 PLD 555 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 69 of 1955 under section 115, Civil P. C. decided on 7th June, 1955, for revision of the order of Muhammad Dastgir, Civil Judge, 4th Class, Lahore, dated the 2nd February, 1955
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
A. R. Sheikh, for Petitioners. Fazal Ghani, for
Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 69 of 1955 under section 115, Civil P. C. decided on 7th June, 1955, for revision of the order of Muhammad Dastgir, Civil Judge, 4th Class, Lahore, dated the 2nd February, 1955
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
A. R. Sheikh, for Petitioners. Fazal Ghani, for
Respondents
Mst. HASAN BEGUM and anothers
VS
Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and another
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
(a) Court-fee---Pre-emption suit-Amount of Court-fee on plaint and question of jurisdiction of Court should be decided on merits and not on a prima facie basis with reference to price mentioned in sale deed. The price mentioned in the sale deed of a house, the subject of a pre-emption suit, was Rs. 2,000, but the plaintiffs said in their plaint that price had been mentioned only to defeat the claim of pre-emptors, the market value of the house being only Rs. 500 which amount was mentioned as the value of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The defendant objected to the valuation. The Civil Judge 4th Class found that the plaintiffs were liable to pay a Court-fee on Rs. 2,000, the price mentioned in the sale deed. As the value for jurisdiction was to be the same as the value for Court-fee, the Civil Judge further held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, his pecuniary limit being Rs. 1,000. He directed that the file be sent to the District Judge for being transferred to a Civil Judge who had jurisdiction to try the suit. Held, that the order was wrong in law. There is no provision in the Court Fees Act directing that before a determination of the issues on merits the question of Court-fee should be decided on a prima facie basis. The question of jurisdiction also could not be decided on a prima facie basis. Muhammad Anwar and others v. Dial Chand and another A I R 1937 Lah. 239 dissented from. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 715-Misinterpretation of law or procedure resulting in refusal to exercise jurisdiction-Revision competent. Every wrong decision on a question of law does not attract the application of section 115 C. P. C., but in this case the Civil judge had mis-interpreted a law which regulated the exercise of his own jurisdiction. If a Court misinterprets a provision of law (as opposed to procedure) regulating the exercise of its own jurisdiction, it acts illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction. If the misinterpreted provision relates to a matter of procedure, the result will be an irregularity and if material will be within section 115 Civil P. C. The difference between a provision of law and a provision…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492