| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1991 2006 SLD 1991 2006 CLC 331 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.651 of 2005, heard on 16-11-2005.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.651 of 2005, heard on 16-11-2005.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. GULSHAN PARVEEN
VS
MUHAMMAD TAYYAB
Law:
Section:
Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) -------S. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8 & 42---Revision petition---Suit for declaration and possession---Improper valuation of suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction---Objection against---Appellate Court set aside and decree of Trial Court on ground that Trial Judge being Court of Judge-III Class, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide suit, value whereof was 6/7 lacs---Case was referred for entrustment to Civil Judge 1st Class for fresh decision---No objection had been taken in written statement to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court as it was filed in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class---Case was entrusted to Civil Judge-III Class in routine---Neither in first appeal nor in second appeal, any objection was taken to pecuniary jurisdiction of Trial Court---No objection was taken to jurisdiction of Civil Judge-III Class till such time that suit was decided---Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, provided for entertaining of objection by a party to pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court in an appeal and it had provided in clear terms that such an objection would not be entertained by Appellate Court unless objection was taken in the Court of first instance---Neither any objection was taken at any stage in the Trial Court to the jurisdiction of Civil Judge-III Class nor any finding was recorded by the Court of first appeal that there had been a failure of justice on merits of the case because of said defect---Impugned order, in circumstances, was wholly without lawful authority and could not be sustained---High Court allowing revision, set aside impugned order with the result that first appeal filed by petitioner would be deemed to be pending before Appellate Court and would be decided on merit within specified period. Rana Meraj Khalid for Petitioner. Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th November, 2005. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 6-12-1999 the petitioner tiled a suit against the respondent. For the order I propose to pass in this case, I will not be referring to the pleaded facts in much detail. Suffice it to say that the suit was for declaration that 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