HASSAN NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN vs MUMTAZ CITY through CEO S — 2023 PLD 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

HASSAN NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN VS MUMTAZ CITY through CEO S. 9---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Civil Court is Court of plenary jurisdiction vested with authority/jurisdiction to determine jurisdictional fact concerning its own jurisdiction upon considering averments made in plaint---Party pleading ouster of jurisdiction has to establish such fact. S. 441---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9, O. VI, R. 5 & O. VII, Rr. 1, 2---Suit for specific performance of agreement, declaration and injunction---Rejecting of plaint---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Better statement---Scope---Plaintiff was CEO of company which claimed to be owner of suit land and had sought specific performance of agreement, declaration and injunction regarding suit property---Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that plaintiff company had not been incorporated under S. 441 of Companies act, 2017, with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan--- Validity--- Some of the rights/claims pleaded were exclusive to plaintiff CEO having no proximity to plaintiff company---There was no determination regarding such aspect in the decision of Trial Court---Contents pleaded required deeper appreciation for the purpose of ascertaining nature of causes of action---Trial Court also failed to exercise jurisdiction to call for further/better statement, in exercise of powers under O. VI, R. 5, C.P.C., if at all some clarity was required---any deficiency found was curable defect, which situation did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C.---Trial Court was eligible and empowered to reject plaint by referring to legal disability under S. 441 of Companies act, 2017, when jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred with respect to the matters coming under Companies act, 2017 and otherwise jurisdictional defects needed determination in context of provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Legal disability provided in terms of S. 441 of Companies act, 2017, was attracted or could be invoked while exercising jurisdiction under S. 9, C.P.C., if it was established that plaintiff company was a foreign company---High Court set aside order passed against plaintiffs and remanded the matter to Trial Court for determination of questions upon framing of issues---appeal was allowed accordingly. Existence and exercise---Principle---Existence of jurisdiction and exercise thereof are distinct concepts---Conferment of jurisdiction is legislative attribute and exercise thereof is embodied of or expression of exercise of jurisdiction conferred by law.

HASSAN NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN vs MUMTAZ CITY through CEO S — 2023 PLD 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD