Can a decree be set aside in revision on grounds of improper venue under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 without satisfying the requirements of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?

1988 SCMR 1766

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN Versus TOWN COMMITTEE, RABWAH

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1988 SCMR 1766

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No.349 of 1988

Date1988-06-18

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan

Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah

ResultLeave granted

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by an employee against a Town Committee challenging his compulsory retirement, which was decreed in his favour by the trial court and upheld in first appeal. However, the High Court accepted the respondent's civil revision, set aside the decree, and remanded the case for retrial at the district headquarters under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, relying on precedent. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that Section 24(2) created a mere technical defect without prejudice to the respondent and that Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was overlooked. The Supreme Court considered whether an objection regarding the venue or place of trial under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 could justify setting aside a decree in revision without satisfying the strict conditions laid down in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Leave to appeal was granted to examine this question.

Questions settled in this judgment

Can a decree be set aside in revision on grounds of improper venue under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 without satisfying the requirements of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 24(2), Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962
Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

leave to appealjurisdictionplace of suingremandcompulsory retirementPunjab Civil Courts OrdinanceCode of Civil Procedure

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner, an employee of a local body (the respondent) against the acceptance of a Civil Revision filed by the respondent and remand of the case for retrial.

2. The petitioner's suit against his compulsory retirement from service of the Committee was decreed. The respondent's appeal failed but in civil revision the High Court held that by virtue of section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 the trial should have been held at the headquarters of the district while in fact it took place at the headquarters of a tehsil. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the case was remanded to the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, for its disposal in accordance with law implying that the same had to be held at the headquarters of the District. Reliance was placed on Province of the Punjab v Abdul Majid (NLR 1983 Service 56 judgment by the Supreme Court).

3. Learned counsel has contended that the decision in the case of Abdul Majid is distinguishable; that the trial (if the suit was held at the headquarters of a sub‑division; and that in any case, no prejudice was caused to the respondent even if there was some technical defect by virtue of the application of section 24(2).

4. It has also to be noticed that section 21, C.P.C. which deals with the filing of a suit before a wrong Court was not examined in the context of the requirements of section 24(2) relied upon in the impugned judgment. Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (i) and section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (ii) are re‑produced below: ‑

(i) "24(2): In every such case the plaintiff shall be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in original suit without limit as regards value and such suit shall be instituted only in the Court of such Civil Judge and shall be heard at the headquarters of the district."

(ii) "21: Objections to Jurisdiction.‑‑No objection as to the place of suing shall‑be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."

5. Though it appears that an objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court was raised before the trial Court but as contended by the learned counsel it was in a different context. The question needs examination: whether the judgment and decree impugned before the' High Court could have been set aside as without jurisdiction without satisfying the requirements of section 21, C.P.C. (amongst other questions, requiring examination) Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.1,000.

6. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.

7. M.I./K‑66/S Leave granted.