ABDUL WAHID RAFIQUE vs MUHAMMAD MISKEEN arts — 2025 PLD 9 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

ABDUL WAHID RAFIQUE VS MUHAMMAD MISKEEN arts. 42(11)(d), 42(11)(e) & 42(12)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and correction in the revenue record during settlement---Value of subject-matter less than Rs.50,000/=---High Court setting aside judgment passed by District Court---Whether appeal or petition for leave to appeal---Respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of appeal against the judgment passed by High Court---Objection of the respondents was that although, through the impugned judgment, the High Court had set aside the judgment of the District Judge, however, the value of the subject matter was less than Rs.50,000/-, hence, against the impugned judgment, Petition to Leave to appeal (PLa) was competent and not direct appeal---Validity---Reading of the provisions of arts. 42(11)(d), 42(11)(e) & 42(12) of the azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution act, 1974, showed that a direct appeal laid in the (Supreme) Court when the value of the subject matter in the Court of first instance and in the appeal was not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court had altered or varied or set aside the impugned judgment or decree of the Court immediately below---First condition for filing the direct appeal before this (Supreme) Court under the said statutory provision was the value of the subject matter before the Court of first instance, as well as in the appeal, which should not be less than Rs.50,000/-, and the second condition was that the High Court had altered, varied or set aside the judgment and decree of the Court immediately below---Except for these two conditions, art. 42(12) of the azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution act, 1974, shall apply---an appeal to the Supreme Court may be filed only if the Court grants leave to appeal upon a petition, and not otherwise---In the present case, the plaintiff (predecessor of the appellants) filed a suit for declaration etc. regarding suit-property before the Senior Civil Judge (Muzaffarabad); and in relevant para of the plaint, the plaintiff himself fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction of the Court as Rs.5000/---Thus, admittedly, the value of the subject matter was less than Rs.50,000/- in the Court of first instance i.e. the Trial Court as well as in the appeal---Had the value of the subject matter been above 50000 rupees in the Court of 1st instance and the High Court had also varied or set aside the judgment and decree of the Court immediately below, then the direct appeal was competent, otherwise, PLa was competent before this (Supreme) Court, even though the High Court set aside, altered or varied the judgment of the Court immediately below---Present appeal had been filed incompetently and was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground, therefore, there was no need to discuss the merits of the case---appeal, having being filed incompetently, was dismissed.

ABDUL WAHID RAFIQUE vs MUHAMMAD MISKEEN arts — 2025 PLD 9 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD