TAJ MUHAMMAD vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
The respondent filed a recovery suit against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge at Gujranwala, which was decreed ex parte. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge remanded the matter. After procedural transfers, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application while modifying the decree terms. The High Court accepted the respondent's subsequent appeal, holding that the Additional District Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, which could only be disposed of by the Civil Judge. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the competence of an Additional District Judge with unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit falling within the competence of a Civil Judge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the jurisdictional competency of the Additional District Judge, laying down principles regarding the distribution and exercise of judicial powers among subordinate civil courts.
- Whether an Additional District Judge enjoying unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction is competent to try a suit or application which fell within the competence of a Civil Judge?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to remand a case for a fresh decision on an application for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- What is the effect of amendments made in Ordinance XIX of 1979 by Ordinance II of 1983 on the jurisdiction of trial courts?
- Ordinance XIX of 1979
- Ordinance II of 1983
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,30,307.21 in the Court of Civil Judge at Gujranwala. The suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree but it was dismissed. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for recording a fresh decision on the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. After the remand, the trial Court sent the case back to the District Judge under the impression that after the amendments made in Ordinance XIX of 1979 by Ordinance II of 1983 it had no jurisdiction to hear the application. The learned District Judge entrusted the case to the Additional District Judge. By an order dated 4-12-83, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application but modified the terms of the ex parte decree by remitting the interest partially and permitting the petitioner to discharge his liability in instalments. The respondent filed an appeal before the High Court which was accepted on the ground that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the application and that the same could only be disposed of by the Civil Judge. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question for consideration in this petition is whether or not the Additional District Judge who also enjoyed unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction was competent to try a suit which fell within the competence of a Civil Judge. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000.
The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. The pendency of the appeal shall not affect pending proceedings in any Court at any stage.