| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1277 2005 SLD 1277 2005 CLC 952 |
Peshawar High Court
First Appeal from Order 82 of 2003, decision dated: 21st March, 2005.
SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN AND MUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN MINAKHEL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
First Appeal from Order 82 of 2003, decision dated: 21st March, 2005.
SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN AND MUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN MINAKHEL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD AMIN
VS
Haji KHAISTA GUL and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 20, 104, O.VII, R.10 & O.XLIII, R.1(a)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Appeal against order---Suit for declaration---Territorial jurisdiction of Court---Return of plaint---Plaintiff in his appeal had called in question order passed by Illaqa Qazi whereby plaint was returned to plaintiff---Trial Court abdicated its jurisdiction for the reason that defendants, who were shown to be residents of the place 'D', which was in the jurisdiction of Trial Court, had finally been deleted---Trial Court, by way of a legal compulsion arising out of deletion of defendants had returned the plaint---One defendant who, on deletion of the said defendants had become defendant in the case, was Range Forest Incharge of place 'D' which was in jurisdiction of Trial Court---Said defendant who being Range Forest Incharge, was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, Trial Court, therefore, could assume jurisdiction on grant of leave as provided under cl.(b) of S.20, C.P.C.---Grant of leave would be based on convenience of the parties and it was the job of Trial Court to weigh said convenience---Impugned order had indicated that said legal aspect of the case escaped the attention of Trial Court---Even otherwise till the return of plaint, no objection was raised from opposite side which, in circumstances, could be considered as acquiescence---Situation would certainly be changed if any objection came from other defendants---High Court allowing appeal, set aside impugned and case was sent back to Trial Court which would consider question of jurisdiction as grant or refusal of leave was the job of Trial Court. Mian Iqbal Hussain for Appellant. Asghar Khan Kundi for Respondent No.1. Obaidullah Anwar, A.A.-G. for Respondents Nos.3 to 5. Date of hearing: 21st March, 2005. JUDGMENT SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, J.--- By way of this appeal, Muhammad Amin, appellant/plaintiff, has called in question the order, dated 7-6-2003 passed by the learned Ilaqa Qazi Malakand at Batkhela, whereby the plaint was returned to the plaintiff under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently…
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