Mst. FARZANA (widow) vs ABID KHAN Ss — 2025 PLD 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Mst. FARZANA (widow) VS ABID KHAN Ss. 9, 115 & O. VII, Rr.10(2), 11(d)---Return of plaint owing to territorial jurisdiction of first court---Presenting the returned plaint before the court having territorial jurisdiction instead of filing a fresh suit---Appearance and participation of the petitioners in the returned suit without raising any objection---Doctrine of estoppel---Waiver by way of acknowledging the proceedings of Trial Court from the point at which the plaint was returned---Effect---Contention of the petitioners was that on the return of plaint respondent should have instituted a fresh suit instead of presenting returned plaint before the court of competent jurisdiction and the proceedings of the Trial Court should have started from the point as if the suit had been instituted for the first time---Validity---Return of plaint means the return of the entire record of the suit to the plaintiff, who may present the plaint (along with entire proceedings) to the court having territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, on return of plaint, plaintiff is not authorized by the C.P.C. to bring a fresh plaint and on presentation of the same plaint, the court shall proceed with the suit from the point at which the plaint was returned---In the instant case on presentation of plaint, petitioners had appeared before Trial Court and started participating in the proceedings without raising any objection---Trial Court commenced examining the evidence of respondent and petitioners had cross-examined respondent's witness and had not raised any objection at the earliest possible opportunity that suit should not be tried from the point at which it was returned, and they had not claimed that they would submit a fresh written statement---Petitioners had participated in the proceedings from the point at which the Trial Court commenced the proceedings, therefore, they by their conduct had waived the objections and acknowledged the proceedings of the Trial Court from the point at which it was when the plaint was returned---Petitioners failed to demonstrate, if any prejudice had been caused to them by the proceedings held by the Court not having the territorial jurisdiction and by the proceedings held by the Trial Court from the point at which the plaint was presented, thus, application made by petitioners under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., was barred by doctrine of waiver---Where a party participates in the proceedings before a Court whose authority to adjudicate upon does not suffer from inherent defect of jurisdiction, such party cannot afterwards raise objection on the proceedings conducted by such Court, therefore, Appellate Court had rightly set-aside the suit's rejection order passed by the Trial Court, which did not suffer from any error of law and of jurisdiction which may attract the provision of S.115, C.P.C.---Civil Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Mst. FARZANA (widow) vs ABID KHAN Ss — 2025 PLD 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD