Citation Name: 2024 CLC 135 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ALI MURAD PIRKANI vs ABDUL MALIK S

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

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 135 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ALI MURAD PIRKANI VS ABDUL MALIK Ss. 41 & 64(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.VII, Rr.10 & 11---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 8 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wrongful dispossession or ejectment---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Whether barred---Plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants alleging therein that their predecessor was tenant of the petitioners in suit land and was in possession thereof, who used to pay the share of crops to the petitioners; after his demise, the respondents, being his successors, came in possession of the suit land and were giving share of crops to the petitioners; and four years prior to the institution of the suit, the petitioners dispossessed them from the suit land without due course of law---Plaint was rejected by the trial Court by accepting the petition filed under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit---appellate Court accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Trial Court by holding that since the petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit---Validity---admittedly, the Revenue Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try a suit instituted by a tenant under S.41 for recovery of his possession under S.64(3), Second Group, clauses (c) and (f) of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978---Under S.9, C.P.C., a Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance was either expressly or impliedly barred---In the present case, the cognizance of a suit instituted by a tenant for restoration of his possession was expressly barred by S.64(3) of the Ordinance---appellate Court had illegally reached at the conclusion that since the petitioners had orally denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, as such, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit---Trial Court had, however, rejected the suit under O. VII, R. 11(c) and (d), C.P.C., on the ground of jurisdiction---Trial Court should have returned the suit under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. read with S. 64(3) proviso (i) of the Ordinance, 1978 by endorsing upon the plaint, the particulars required by O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., and returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court---Civil revision was allowed by restoring the order of Trial Court with modification that the plaint shall be returned to the respondents for its presentation to the Revenue Court having jurisdiction for decision.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 135 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ALI MURAD PIRKANI vs ABDUL MALIK Ss — 2024 CLC 135 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC