SHAH ZAMAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD AZAM And Other
This matter arises from four civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which allowed the contesting respondents to withdraw their writ petitions and file civil suits to vindicate their property rights, with observations that the suits be decided on their own merits. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court's direction to decide the forthcoming civil suits on merits would preclude civil courts from considering objections regarding their lack of jurisdiction, particularly where petitioners claimed permanent entitlement to the land. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners are entitled to raise all legal pleas in their defence—including the question of the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suits—notwithstanding the High Court's observations. The Court laid down the principle that granting liberty to file a civil suit does not bar the defendant from raising jurisdictional objections, and ordered that while the suits may proceed, no final decision shall be rendered by the civil court during the pendency of the appeals.
- Whether the High Court's observation to decide a civil suit on its own merits precludes a party from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction?
- Can civil courts entertain suits regarding property where permanent entitlement has been granted?
- Whether a civil court can take a final decision during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 206-R of 1985, Civil Petition No. 207-R of 1985, Civil Petition No. 208-R of 1985 and Civil Petition No. 209-R of 1985, as the question raised in all these petitions is the same.
2. The High Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petitions with right to file civil suits to each of the contesting respondents to vindicate their civil rights in the property. While allowing them to do so it observed that the civil suit when filed will be decided on its "own merits".
3. It is urged that as the petitioners were given permanent, entitlement of the land, the civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the observation made by the High Court that the civil suit should be decided on "merits" would prevent it from,,% holding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is bound to decide the case on merits.
4. The submission has some force. Leave to appeal is allowed in all the abovementioned four petitions.
5. Security in the sum of Rs.500 in each case.
6. In the meanwhile, the suits filed by the respondents may proceed but it will be open to the petitioners to raise all the legal pleas open to them in their defence including the plea that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, no final decision will be taken by the civil Court during the pendency of the appeals in this Court.
7. The above appeals shall be posted for hearing on a very early date, on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.