Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 547 1997 SLD 547 1997 CLC 27
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No.71 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd July, 1996
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ
Fida Muhammad Khan for Petitioners

Syed LUQMAN SHAH and 6 others

VS

DISTRICT JUDGE, HARIPUR and 3 others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.II, Rr. 2 & 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Consititutional petition---General power of attorney was purportedly executed at ' H' while on basis thereof, property of principals situated at 'K' in another Province was sold by holder of such power of attorney---Principals while challenging general power of attorney to be result of fraud committed at ' H' where same was purported to have been executed, sought permission of Court within contemplation of O. II, R. 3, C. P. C. in order to avoid mischief of O. II. R.11, C.P.C. for not including in that suit immovable property which was situated at K' in another Province for which suit ought to have been filed at ' K'---Trial Court allowed such permission which was affirmed by Appellate Court in appeal---Validity---Provisions of O.II, R.3, C.P.C. invoked by Courts below were squarely attracted in situation exactly like the one in hand---Provision of O.II, R.3, C.P.C. was enacted only to avoid application of res judicata, constructive res judicata and O.II R.2, C.P.C. for plaintiff who was litigating under bona fide claim---Law having given authority to Court to grant such permission, exercise of power thereunder was therefore, not without jurisdiction as in similar situation, exercise of such jurisdiction would be legal and equitable---If plaintiff was to bring suit at 'H' qua property at 'K' without joining some property at ' H' , it would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon and had he challenged general power of attorney at ' K' plaintiff would have difficulty to disprove fact that had taken place at 'H' and might also had to face strong objection about territorial jurisdiction---Balance, thus, would tilt in favour of plaintiff for power of attorney was of course attested at 'H'--­Plaintiff's case was suitable one which afforded most apt situation where Court ought to have had exercised its authority under O.II, R.3, C.P.C. and such power could be exercised also in such situation where different suits likely to be brought fell under different territorial jurisdiction---Both Courts below had not acted without jurisdiction and also had not failed to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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