PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others vs Messrs AKHTAR AND CO.
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against Messrs Akhtar and Co., challenging the judgment of the High Court in an FAO. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court's judgment was rendered without pecuniary jurisdiction, given that the pecuniary jurisdiction was amended in 2002 while the FAO was decided in 2008, rendering the judgment allegedly coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that the absence of pecuniary jurisdiction appeared to be patent and was not considered by the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment, noting that the decretal amount had been deposited and placed in a profit-bearing security scheme. The key principle laid down is that where a patent defect of pecuniary jurisdiction exists and was overlooked by the appellate court, the operation of such judgment may be suspended pending appeal.
- Whether an appellate judgment is coram non judice when rendered without pecuniary jurisdiction due to subsequent amendments?
- Can the operation of a High Court judgment be suspended when a patent defect of pecuniary jurisdiction is established?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the lower court fails to consider the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.----The contention of learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, is that FAO No,14 of 2000 before the High Court was not maintainable because of absence of pecuniary jurisdiction; which was amended in 2002, while the FAO was decided on 25-2-2008. The impugned judgment is, thus, coram non judice and suffers from , absence of pecuniary jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Ahmed Khan (2004 SCMR 1612).
Leave to appeal is granted to inter alia consider this question or any other question which may arise at the time of hearing the appeal.
2. CMA No,239-L of 2008. The learned Law Officer states that the decretal amount was deposited in the High Court and the same had been placed in a profit bearing security scheme by the Executing Court. Therefore, the operation of the impugned judgment may be suspended.
3. We consider that in the present case, absence of pecuniary jurisdiction appears to be patent and this issue was not taken into consideration by the High Court, wherefor, operation of the impugned judgment is suspended in the meantime.