ALLAH BA KHSH AND OTHERS vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption suit where a sale effected on 30-11-1973 was pre-empted through a plaint presented to a Tehsildar on 27-11-1974 during the absence of the Civil Judge, and later placed before the Civil Judge on 2-12-1974. The core legal question is whether the suit can be regarded as instituted within limitation when the plaint was filed before a Tehsildar authorized by the District Judge to receive the same. The High Court had held that the suit was validly instituted within time before an authorized officer. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the term 'officer' competent to receive plaints means an officer of the court ordinarily competent, and that a Tehsildar does not qualify, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court found that the question raised requires consideration, granted leave, ordered security, and directed the interim stay order to continue.
- Whether a suit can be regarded as within limitation when the plaint is filed before a Tehsildar authorized by the District Judge during the absence of the Civil Judge?
- Does the term 'officer' competent to receive plaints mean an officer of the court ordinarily competent to receive plaints?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The sale was effected on 30-11-1973 which was pre-empted by filing suit for possession on 2 -11-1974. However, the plaint was filed before the Tehsildar on 27- 1-1974 and placed before the Civil Judge on 2-12-1974, on his return from tour.
2. ' The question is whether "the suit in these circumstances, can be regarded to be within limitation"
3. ' The learned Judge in the High Court was of the view that the plaint filed before the Tehsildar on 27-11-1974 when the learned Civil Judge was not holding Court being duly authorised by the District Judge to receive the same, the suit must be deemed to have been validly instituted, within time on 27-11-1974, before an authorised officer.
4. Before us it has been contended that the power of receiving plaints can be conferred upon an "Officer" of the Court competent to receive plaints stand the term "Officer" means an officer of the Court ordinarily compel tent to receive plaints and that a Tehsildar is not such an Officer. Reliance is placed on Nazar Muhammad v. Murad Ali (1) in support of this submission.
5. ' The question raised requires consideration. .
6. ' Security Rs, 2,500.
7. ' Interim Order of Stay to continue meanwhile.
(1) PLD 1960 Lab. 757 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY, SINDH And 2 Other 1992 PLD Karachi 414