DIN MUHAMMAD And 7 Others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And 2 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the limitation period for a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 1-9-1972 before an Additional District Judge, was barred by time, given the petitioner's argument that the plaint should have been presented to an Administrative Civil Judge, who only received it on 9-9-1972, after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that the suit was filed within time. The Court found that due to the unavailability of a Civil Judge at the time, the District Judge had validly authorized the Additional District Judge to receive plaints. The Court reasoned that since the District Judge possessed the original jurisdiction to receive plaints, they were empowered under the relevant statutory framework to delegate this specific function to the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the presentation of the plaint to the Additional District Judge on 1-9-1972 constituted a valid and timely institution of the suit. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Can a District Judge delegate the function of receiving plaints to an Additional District Judge?
- Does the presentation of a plaint to an Additional District Judge authorized by the District Judge constitute a valid institution of a suit?
- Is a suit for pre-emption barred by time if the plaint is presented to an authorized Additional District Judge within the limitation period?
- Section 6(2), Civil Courts Ordinance 1962
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave is whether the suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for pre-emption was barred by time. The sale which gave rise to the suit was made by a registered deed, dated 2-9-1971. The suit was instituted on 1-9- 1972 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. It was then transferred to the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala, on 9-9-1972. The case of the petitioner is that the plaint could not be directly entertained by the Additional District Judge and for that reason it should be taken to have been presented only on 9-9-1972 when it reached the Court of Administrative Civil Judge. On the last mentioned date the limitation for filing the suit stood expired.
2. It appears that on account of certain promotions no Civil Judge exercising first class powers was available at Gujranwala when the civil Courts reopened after the long vacation on 1-9-1972. Faced with this situation the District Judge by an order, dated 31-8-1972 authorised the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala to receive plaints in first class suits from 1st to 8th September, 1972 or till the arrival of the Administrative Civil Judge. In the presence of this order it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Additional District Judge was not competent to entertain the plaint of the respondents on 1-9-1972.
3. It is then contended by the petitioner that the District Judge was not competent to authorize the Additional District Judge to receive plaints. When asked if the District Judge was himself competent to receive the plaints being the Court of original jurisdiction in the District, the learned counsel replied in the affirmative. This being so, the District Judge had the power under section 6(2) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 to entrust his function in this regard to the Additional District Judge also. In the circumstances the attack on the delegation of this function by him in favour of the Additional District Judge on 31-8-1972 cannot be sustained. Thus, the plaint was properly presented by the respondents before the Additional District Judge on 1-9-1972 when admittedly the limitation had not yet expired.
4. For the reasons stated above, the prayer for leave to appeal is refused
Cited by 1 case
- Dr. Muhammad Eshfaq Gujjar and another vs Additional District Judge 2021 LHC 5486, 2022 [M] CLR 655