AFTAB MUNAWAR vs NOVARTIS PHARMA PAKISTAN LTD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal challenging the High Court's order in civil revision proceedings, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Larkana. The core legal question was whether the respondent was barred from challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court because such an objection was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper assessment of facts and law and contained no legal infirmity. The Court ruled that the provisions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are directory rather than mandatory in nature. It established the principle that Section 21 does not impose a penalty for failing to raise an objection to territorial jurisdiction at the first instance, and such provisions cannot be construed as mandatory unless the statutory language explicitly prescribes a penalty for non-compliance.
- Are the provisions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding objections to territorial jurisdiction mandatory or directory in nature?
- Does Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impose a penalty for failing to raise an objection to territorial jurisdiction at the earliest possible opportunity?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts?
- Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
AMIR HAN/ MUSLIM, J.---Through these proceedings, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the learned High Court passed in Civil Revisions, by which it has maintained the orders of the Courts below.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the learned High Court as well as the Courts below did not appreciate that the Trial Court at Larkana was competent and had the jurisdiction to try the suits filed by the Petitioner before it against the Respondent. He in support of his contentions has relied on the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code, which provides that the objection to the jurisdiction of a Court has to be raised in the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and not subsequent thereto. The learned Counsel submits that in the written statement, the Respondent did not object to the territorial jurisdiction and, objections were raised at a subsequent stage.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.
4. Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code does not entail penalty in case if the objection of the nature is not raised at the first instance. These provisions of Civil Procedure Code are directory in nature and cannot be construed as mandatory unless the language of the section entails penalty.
The learned High Court as well as Courts below have reached a finding against the Petitioner after scanning the relevant facts and law and such concurrent findings cannot be gone into unless it is shown that the judgment suffers from any legal infirmity.
5. We do not find any infirmity of the nature, which would warrant inference. These Petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Haji Abdur Rehman vs Umar Farooq Miankhel and others 2018 PHC 1323