SHAHID SARWAR KHAN And Others vs HASHIM KHAN
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed civil revisions arising from pre-emption suits. The petitioners challenged the validity of the decrees on two primary grounds: first, that the initial filing of the suits in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the subsequent decrees nullities; and second, that the appointment of guardians-ad-litem for minor defendants was procedurally improper. The Supreme Court examined these contentions and found them meritless. Regarding the jurisdictional argument, the Court held that Section 11(b) of the relevant statute provided a complete answer, precluding the challenge. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to raise these objections before the appellate court, thereby depriving the judicial process of the opportunity to rectify any technical defects. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the conduct of the petitioners in withholding these pleas at the appropriate stage barred them from raising them in revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that procedural objections must be timely raised to allow for remedial measures.
- Does the initial filing of a suit in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction render subsequent decrees a nullity?
- Can a party raise objections regarding the appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for the first time in revisional jurisdiction if they failed to raise them before the appellate court?
- Does the failure to raise procedural objections before an appellate court preclude a party from seeking relief on those grounds in a higher forum?
- Section 11(b), Suits Valuation Act 1887
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 16-11-1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Civil Revisions arising out of two suits for pre-emotion, were dismissed.
2. The respondent filed two pre-emotion suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, who allegedly had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the same. However, they were transferred to the Civil Judge, First Class, (learned counsel does not know how and when) who ultimately dismissed the same. On appeals filed by the respondent, however, the suits were decreed by the District Court. The petitioners (defendants) then filed two Civil Revisions in the High Court which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal, on two grounds which were also urged before the High Court: One, that the suit having been filed initially before a Court which had no jurisdiction the decrees in favour of the respondent is a nullity; and secondly, that some of the defendants were minors whose guardian-ad-litem were not appointed properly. Learned counsel in the High Court dealt with both the points and, inter alia, observed that the pleas were not raised before the appellate Court, therefore, they were not fit points to be examined in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the learned Judge also made observations about the merits of the pleas.
3. We, after hearing the learned counsel, also do not find any force in any of the arguments of the learned counsel. It is not denied that the appointment of guardian-ad-litem did take place if there was any technical defect and had it been raised before the appellate Court it would have been removed.
4. On the second point section 11, clause (b) is a complete answer to the question raised by the learned counsel. Otherwise too, the same not having been raised before the appellate Court the chance for remedial measures has been lost on account of the conduct of the petitioners. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which accordingly is refused.