| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 296 1999 SLD 296 1999 SCMR 394 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal . No.101-Q of 1998, decision dated: 29-09-1998. (On appeal against the judgment dated 14-5-1998 of the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in C.P. No.464/1997)
SH. RIAZ AHMED AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Basharatuallah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record. for Petitioners. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal . No.101-Q of 1998, decision dated: 29-09-1998. (On appeal against the judgment dated 14-5-1998 of the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in C.P. No.464/1997)
SH. RIAZ AHMED AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Basharatuallah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record. for Petitioners. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1
MUHAMMAD AYUB and 4 others
VS
Dr. OBAIDULLAH and 6 others
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)--- ----S. 18---Forum of appeal---Determination---Forum of appeal was to be determined according to value of suit as mentioned in the plaint. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Conversion of revision petition into Constitutional petition---Revision petition could be converted into Constitutional petition and vice versa in a fit case. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 ref. ORDER SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 14-5-1998 whereby writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and it was held that the determination of the forum of appeal would depend upon the valuation of the suit given in the plaint. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that respondent Dr. Obaidullah instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption against petitioners 1-5/vendees and respondents Nos.6 and 7/vendors in respect of the disputed property. Initially, the suit was entertained by the Additional District Judge, Quetta, but subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pishin. The suit was contested by the petitioners and amongst others, the following issue was framed:-- "Whether the genuine price of the disputed land paid by the defendants Nos. l to 5 to the vendors is Rs.7,50,000.instead of Rs.2,25,000?" After recording evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the genuine price of the suit land was Rs.7,50,000 and the suit was dismissed. An appeal was taken before the District Judge, who transferred the same to the file of the Additional District Judge, who vide order dated 24-9-1997 returned the memo. of appeal for presenting the same before .the Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the subject-matter of the appeal exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge. Regular first appeal was filed against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed for not having been pressed. The learned counsel also sought permission to file a Constitution petition against the…
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