Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

2003 S C M R 990

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ

Haji ABDUL MALIK and 10 others---Appellants

Versus

MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN and 26 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 746 of 1995, heard on 2nd April, 2002.

(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Bench Abbottabad, dated 20-7-1994
passed in Civil Revision No. 178 of 1992).

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----

----S. 16 & O. VII, R.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--胎eave to appeal was
granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether or not the Civil Courts was justified in returning
the plaint to the plaintiff.

(b) Special Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.16---Declaratory suits--茅erritorial jurisdiction of


Trial Court---Determination---Principles---Suit relating to the rights and- interest in an immovable
property is instituted in a Court within local limits of which the property is situated---Suit for the
purposes of determining the rights or interest in the property being different to that of the suit in
which the relief claimed does not relate to the rights -in immovable property, can be filed at the
place at which the cause of action fully or partially arose---Suit relating to the rights in the
immovable property would lie before the Court within tote local limits of which the property is
situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the relief
being sought in the suit relates to the property, the slut would not be maintainable before any other
Court except the one within territorial jurisdiction of which property is situated---Essential factor
for determination of jurisdiction for the purposes of entertaining tile suit be judged from the
contents of the plaint and the dispute which is subject-matter of the suit and not from the
consequences flown from the suit.

(c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---

----Ss. 17, 29 & 77--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.16
& O. VII, R.10---Registration of document, cancellation of---Assailing of such cancellation---
Territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court---Determination---Return of plaint for lack of territorial
jurisdiction---Registration of agreement was cancelled by Registrar on the ground that the
registration was sought through misrepresentation---Document was registered and then cancelled
at place `M' and declaration was sought by the plaintiff in the suit at place 'M', that the cancellation
of registration was illegal---Trial Court returned the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction and the order of Trial Court was maintained by Appellate Court---High Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and
'remanded the suit to Trial Court for decision on merits--耶ontention of the defendant was that
under the provisions of S.16, Cr.P.C. the suit was maintainable at the place where the property the
subject-matter of the document was located---Validity---Relief sought in the plaint did not relate
to the tights and interest in the immovable property and was confined only to the limited extent of
the exercise of jurisdiction by the Registrar---Place of breach of law would furnish the forum for
the suit and such place was where some act was to be performed and thus the suit to set aside the
document on the ground that it-was obtained through misrepresentation would be maintainable at
the place where the act of misrepresentation was committed and if such document was registered,
the suit would be maintainable at the place of its registration ---Suit-which involved dispute
relating to the rights in, the immovable property would be maintainable at the place where property
was situated and if the relief did not relate to the rights and interest in the property and was confined
only to the extent of an ancillary matter, such suit could be filed at the place where the cause of
action wholly or partly arose---High Court had rightly decided the maintainability of the suit at
place ' M' and no exception could be taken to the legal position explained in the judgment of High
Court---Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Rajlakshmi Dassi v. Banamali AIR 1950 Cal. 510 ref.

Qazi Muhammad Jamil, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-
Record for Appellants.

M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record
(absent) for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002.

Potrebbero piacerti anche