ISLAM DIN and 7 others vs NASEERUDDIN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of a house. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and subsequent appeals and revision petitions were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court, respectively. The petitioners challenged the proceedings on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to close their evidence, arguing that the Senior Civil Judge, to whom the case was transferred, should have proceeded afresh. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge and failed to raise this objection during the trial or in the first appellate stage. The High Court had rightly rejected this plea, noting it was raised for the first time in revision. The Supreme Court held that since the objection was purely technical and the petitioners had acquiesced to the jurisdiction throughout the proceedings, the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, finding no error of law in the impugned judgment.
- Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a court for the first time in a revision petition if they failed to raise it before the trial court or the first appellate court?
- Does a party's failure to object to a court's jurisdiction during trial proceedings constitute acquiescence?
- Is a technical objection regarding the closure of evidence valid when the party has submitted to the court's jurisdiction throughout the litigation?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners' seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 30-1-1993.
2. . The facts, in brief, are that the respondent brought a suit for possession of the disputed house against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit. Several issues were framed. The evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded by the trial Court. As the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of valuation was Rs,50,000, therefore, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, who proceeded with the case and decreed the suit against the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the evidence of the petitioners was closed by the trial Court, who had no jurisdiction to pass an order, therefore, all proceedings conducted by him are without jurisdiction. He has submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge should have proceeded afresh. This contention has no force. The petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. They did not raise any objection either before the Senior Civil Judge, to whom the case was transferred or before the Court of Additional District Judge, where they challenged the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge. This objection was raised before the High Court, for the first time and the same was rejected. The learned Single Judge (in Chambers) has observed as under:-- "On a question being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that this objection was never raised by him either before the trial Court or even in appeal before the Additional District Judge. It is clear from the memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Court that order, dated 2nd April, 1990, by virtue of which evidence of the petitioners was closed, was never questioned on the ground that it was passed by a Court having no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the petitioners to raise this objection before this Court for the first time."
As observed by the High Court, the objection was purely technical. On merits, the suit had been decreed against the petitioners.
' There is no error of law. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mst. Sheedan Begum etc vs Muhammad Usman Khan etc 2021 LHC 4844
- Mst. SHEEDAN BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN 2021 MLD 1937
- KALAY KHAN and 2 others vs WALAYAT KHAN 2010 YLR 1430
- Let.Gen.(R) SALAHUDDIN TIRMIZI vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2008 PLD Supreme Court 735
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GOJRA through Administrator vs Mst. TASNEEM 2000 PLC 81
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE GOJRA Through Its Administrator vs Mst. TASNEEM K.L.R. 2001 Labour & Service Cases 61