NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL (N.L.C.) vs HAZRAT ALI and others
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed appeals filed by the National Logistic Cell regarding compensation suits under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855. The core legal question was whether the High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over two of the three suits, given that the claimed amounts were below the threshold established by the Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance 2002, and whether the consolidation of these suits was appropriate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to maintain jurisdiction and consolidate the suits was correct to avoid conflicting decisions, noting that the suits arose from the same cause of action and that the High Court retained jurisdiction over the matter involving the higher claim. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding the denial of the right to file a written statement, noting that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity. The judgment affirms the principle that procedural consolidation is a valid mechanism to prevent contradictory outcomes in related litigation, even when pecuniary jurisdiction thresholds are subsequently amended.
- Does the amendment of pecuniary jurisdiction thresholds for civil courts automatically divest the High Court of jurisdiction over pending suits that fall below the new threshold?
- Can a High Court consolidate multiple suits arising from the same cause of action to avoid conflicting decisions even if individual claims vary in value?
- Is a party entitled to file a written statement after failing to do so within the time provided by the court?
- Fatal Accidents Act 1855
- Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance 2002
' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---These Petitions impugn the common judgment dated 20-11-2008 passed by learned Sindh High Court in High Court Appeals Nos. 336, 337 and 338 of 2005 whereby the same were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein had filed Suits Nos. 391, 392 and 393 of 1997 against the petitioner under Fatal Accidents Act 1855 for compensation/damages suffered as a result of the death of three persons due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner's employees while driving Trailer No, 829-050 on the wrong side of the National Highway on its way from Karachi to Thatta. The Suits were decreed against which the petitioners had filed above mentioned High Court Appeals which were dismissed as noted above.
3. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in support of the Petitions has firstly submitted that Suit No,391 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs,13,30,000 and Suit No,393 of 1997 for Rs,27,31,600 and hence in both the suits the amount prayed for and decreed were much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court which starts at Rs,30,00,000.
However, Suit No,392 of 1997 was filed for recovery of Rs,68,14,000 and as no order of consolidation was passed in the three suits, therefore, in so far as Suits Nos.391 and 393 of 1997 are concerned these are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court.
4. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has also feebly argued that the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement although a proper application was moved for doing so belatedly; that it was a case of contributory negligence and finally that the learned High Court has awarded certain items to the respondents which were not even prayed for.
5. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and gone through the record carefully with his assistance. In so far as the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned High Court concerned, the same has been adverted to in the impugned judgment and the conclusion reached was that when the suits were filed in the year 1997 the learned High Court had the jurisdiction which was amended on 18th September, 2002 by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment)
Ordinance 2002 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Karachi Districts in Civil Suits was increased upto Rs,30,00,000 and all proceedings not exceeding such amount pending in the High Court stood immediately transferred to the concerned District Court for disposal. As all the Civil Suits arose from the same cause of action, on pointation of the learned Counsel for the parties it was ordered that Suit No,393 of 1997 which was filed for recovery of Rs,68,14,000 still pending in the B High Court after promulgation of Ordinance 2002 was directed to be tagged along with other two suits. We find that this direction was eminently correct and passed in order to avoid conflict of decisions. In so far as the other points taken by the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we find no substance in the same as admittedly sufficient time was given to the petitioner to file its written statement and on its failure to do so its side was closed. However, the petitioner did examine Respondents' witnesses and also led its own evidence.
6. Consequently we find no force in these petitions and hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgments and the same are hereby dismissed and .
Cited by 1 case
- Tausif Ahmed vs Mst. Shaista Malik, etc 2021 IHC 334, 2022 CLC 269