AFTAB MUNAWAR vs NOVARTIS PHARMA PAKISTAN LTD.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which maintained concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The core legal question was whether the failure to raise an objection to territorial jurisdiction at the earliest possible opportunity, as contemplated by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, acts as an absolute bar or penalty against raising such an objection at a later stage. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are directory in nature rather than mandatory. The Court reasoned that the statute does not prescribe a specific penalty for failing to raise jurisdictional objections at the first instance. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions lacking an explicit penalty clause are generally construed as directory, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed absent a clear legal infirmity.
- Are the provisions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 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 first instance?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' Amir Hani 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.