Mst. BAKHAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD ALI And 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which affirmed lower court decisions rejecting the petitioners' plea of limitation in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners purchased land in 1967, prompting respondents to file a pre-emption suit in 1968. Initially filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot, the plaint was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after an amendment increased the suit's valuation beyond the trial court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaint was subsequently re-presented in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. The petitioners contended that the suit was time-barred, an issue decided against them by the trial court and the Additional District Judge, and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the petitioners' contention regarding the incorrect legal determination of the limitation issue required further examination. The Court held that the legal validity of the limitation finding warranted a full hearing, thereby staying the proceedings in the interim.
- Does the return of a plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and its subsequent re-presentation affect the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- Can a suit be considered time-barred if the initial filing was within time but the plaint was returned for re-presentation in a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
S. A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioners purchased land on 15-8-1967 from the third respondent. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereupon, filed a suit for pre-emption in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot on 2-9-1968. Admittedly on the date of institution the court-fee of Rs.743.40 only was paid.
However, by an ex parte amendment the valuation of the suit was changed and fixed at Rs.20,000 and on such valuation the suit fell beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, and the plaint was, therefore, returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10, C . P. C . The plaint was then represented on 7-9-1968 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang during the absence of the Presiding Officer and was received by the Reader of the Court. It was put up before the Court on 9- 9-1968.
2. In the background of the above facts, the petitioners raised objection in their written statement that the suit was time-barred and an issue was framed in this behalf. The issue was decided against the petitioners and so was the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Finally, the same point was raised in a Second Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the point of limitation was not decided according to law needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The stay already granted in the suit shall continue meanwhile.