NAZAR HUSSAIN vs FAQIR MOHAMMAD
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Muzaffargarh district, wherein the respondent-vendee initially admitted the petitioner's superior right of pre-emption but subsequently claimed an improved status under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The trial Court framed an additional issue on this point. The petitioner challenged this by filing a revision petition before the District Judge, which was dismissed on the merits. A second revision petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed in limine on jurisdictional grounds based on suit valuation. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the District Judge lacked revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972) because the actual value of the subject-matter exceeded the District Court's financial limit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a party who voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a forum cannot subsequently challenge that forum's jurisdiction upon receiving an adverse decision on the merits.
- Can a party who voluntarily invokes the revisional jurisdiction of a court later challenge that court's jurisdiction after failing on the merits?
- Whether a second revision petition lies to the High Court when a party has unsuccessfully pursued a revision before a District Court without requisite financial jurisdiction?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
- Martial Law Regulation No. 115
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.- This petition for special leave to appeal has arisen out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, Nazar Hussain, in respect of the sale of six kanals and 15 marlas of land situate in village Kotla Qazi Thal in the Leiah Tehsil of the Muzaffargarh district. It is stated that in his "better statement," recorded by the trial Judge on 27-5-1972, the respon--dent-vendee admitted the superior right of pre-emption of the petitioner and that he reiterated the same position in his statement made on the 24th of June 1972. Issues were framed accordingly, but on the same day the respondent submitted an application contending that he had improved his status under Martial Law Regulation No.115 Thereupon, the learned trial Judge framed an addition issue in this behalf.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of the District Judge at Muzaffargarh, but the, same was.' dismissed on 27-2-1973. The petitioner thereupon filed a second revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was, however, dismissed to limine by a learned Single Judge on the 7th of March 1973, observing that the value of the suit was only Rs.150 for the purpose of jurisdiction, and a second revision was not competent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the value of the subject-matter of the suit was Rs.51,000 which was the sale price of the land, and, therefore, in terms of the amendment introduced in section 115 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by Article 5 of the Schedule to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition in this matter, with the result that the order passed by him was a nullity in the eye of law, and the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition.
4. It is correct that under the newly added subsection (2) of section 115 of the C. P. C., the District Court has been authorized to exercise revisional powers in respect of cases in which the amount or value of the subject--matter does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of that Court, viz., Rs.25,000 at present, and, therefore, prima facie the District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's revision petition A in view of the value of the land forming the subject- matter of the suit. However, we do not regard this as a fit case for our interference for the reason that it was the petitioner himself who invoked the revisional jurisdic--petition of the District Court, and he cannot now be permitted to contend that that Court had no jurisdiction simply because he has failed on merits.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING COMPANY Versus CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED 2004 CLD 1
- ILAHI BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Mst. BALQEES BEGUM 1985 PLD Lahore 494
- MIAN KHAN vs FATEH ALI and 3 others 1985 MLD 1089
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. JAHAN ARA BEGUM 1979 CLC 439
- INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING COMPANY vs CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING 2004 PLJ Lahore 586
- International Multi Leasing Corporation Ltd. vs Capital Assets Leasing 2004 P.C.T.L.R. 175