REHMAT ALI AND Another vs NOOR MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent regarding a sale transaction dated 10-04-1969. Although the Civil Judge dismissed the suit, the District Judge accepted the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation due to improper jurisdictional valuation and improper presentation of the plaint, as it was received by the Ahlmad while the Civil Judge was on tour. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions, noting that the jurisdictional valuation was within the competent limits of the trial court and that presentation to the Ahlmad was valid under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that under Order IV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaint may be presented to an officer duly authorized by the court in its behalf. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
- Is a plaint validly presented when received by an authorized Ahlmad in the judge's absence on tour?
- Whether presentation of a plaint to an officer appointed by the court satisfies the requirements of suit institution under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order VI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN,J.--Noor Muhammadplaintiff/respondent filed a Civil Suit to pre-empt a transaction of sale dated 10-4-1969 as mentioned in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 3-6-1975.
2. The plaintiff-pre-emptor filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 2- 2-1976, whereby he reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge and decreed the suit.
3. The defendant/vendees filed a second appeal being S. A.0.353 of 1976, but without any success as the same was dismissed by High Court on 2-10-1979.
4. The defendant/vendees have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that as the plaint of the plaintiff itself showed valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.5,972.70 therefore its institution in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Class-III (Alipur) was defective with the result that when the suit ultimately reached the Court of competent jurisdiction it had become time barred. The contention has no merit. The learned counsel for the caveators has pointed out that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in the plaint was only Rs.45 and therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel has no merit inasmu ch as a suit of that valuation could be fixed before the learned Civil Judge (Alipur). When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer. It was then argued that the suit which was instituted 9-4-1970, in the Court of Civil Judge, Alipur, was actually received by his Ahlmed as the learned Civil Judge on that date was on tour. It was argued that the receipt of the plaint by the Ahlmed was not a proper institution. The contention has no force. According to Order VI, rule 1, C. P. C. a plaint can be presented to the Court or to such Officer as it appoints in this behalf. It is not in dispute that the learned Civil Judge had authorised his Ahlmed to receive the plaints in his absence and this is what exactly was done in this case, and the aforesaid presentation was further authenticated by the Tehsildar Alipur, according to the relevant procedure of the place
6. No other point was argued before us.
7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Peer Mohammad vs Mohammad Yasin, etc 2015 LHC 3287
- Peer Muhammad vs Muhammad Yasin, etc 2015 LHC 3287, 2015 C.L.R. 1552
- ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others vs Mst. BALQEES BEGUM and 4 others 1992 SCMR 2443
- MOSAM KHAN And 4 Other vs MIR ALAM KHAN 1992 PLD Supreme Court 47