82/2018 R.A (Civil Revision) Arthur Lawerance Private Limited (Applicant) V/S M/S Actlaw (The Legal Consortium) (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 05-APR-19
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 115, 6 & 15 & O. VII, R. 10---Revision before High Court---Procedure---Revision, in the present case, was filed before High Court without availing remedy before District Judge---Validity---Power of High Court with regard to the cases decided by any Court subordinate to High Court in which no appeal lay was not subject to any limitation---Revisional power of District Court was dependent on its pecuniary jurisdiction---Revisional power of Court was unfettered when it was exercised by the High Court and/ or District Court suo motu---When such jurisdiction had been invoked then copies of all the proceedings should have been furnished and revision should have been filed within ninety days from the date of order in which no appeal lay---Revisional powers of High Court and District Court were concurrent only when it was exercised by said courts at their own---Pecuniary value of claim of petitioner, in the present case, did not exceed the limits of appellate jurisdiction of District Court---If suit had been dismissed or decreed by the Trial Court on merit then first appeal would lie before District Judge on account of pecuniary value of the decretal amount---When revisional jurisdiction had been invoked against a particular order then it would not be a case of concurrent jurisdiction and mandatory provisions of S.6 read with Ss.15 to 20 of C.P.C. were also be considered---Aggrieved party had no option in the matter of jurisdiction of Court and it should respect each and every word of statute with regard to the jurisdiction---Every suit was to be instituted in the Court of lowest grade---Provisions of Ss.6 & 15 of C.P.C. were to be complied with while filing revision/appeal---Revision/appeal could not be filed in the High Court unless pecuniary value of the subject matter did exceed the appellate jurisdiction of District Court---When case had been filed in a Court which had no jurisdiction on pecuniary ground then plaint/revision should be returned to the party to file it in the Court having both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction within limitation prescribed for filing the same---Petitioner had consumed more than ninety days time to overcome objection raised by the office---Revision petition could not be presented in the Court of District Judge after expiry of ninety days which was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1995 Lah. 15 and Mst. Safia Mushtaq v. Wali Muhammad and 18 others 2010 CLC 120 distinguished. Khalid Ahmed and another v. Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari and others 1994 MLD 903; HOECHST Pakistan Limited and others v. Maqbool Ahmed and another 1998 CLC 134 and Shafi-ur-Rehman and 2 others v. Fateh Muhammad PLD 2002 Kar. 511 rel. (b) Appeal--- ----Appeal/revision was a continuation of original suit. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Court could not interpret one section of an Act which might render the other mandatory provision of the said Act meaningless.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.