Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2016 YLRN 96
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: AMANAT ALI vs KHALID NAWAZHonorable Justice Muhammad Tariq AbbasiMian Muhammad Akram,Nemo
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between AMANAT ALI and KHALID NAWAZHonorable Justice Muhammad Tariq AbbasiMian Muhammad Akram,Nemo, officially reported as 2016 YLRN 96. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2016 Y L R Note 96 [Lahore (Multan Bench)] Before Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J AMANAT ALI---Petitioner Versus KHALID NAWAZ---Respondent Civil Revision No.247 of 2010, heard on 21st April, 2014. (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Plaintiff filing suit for cancellation of cheque before Civil Court---Defendant filing another suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. on basis of same cheque before the Additional District Judge---Suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1, 2, C.P.C. stayed by the Additional District Judge till decision of suit for cancellation of cheque---Legality---Such order passed by Additional District Judge staying suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. was not competent because nature, procedure and jurisdiction of the suits and the Courts was different---Impugned order could not be termed to be justified, hence the same was set aside with a direction to respective Courts to carry on the proceedings in the suits as per prescribed procedure---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5 and 9 of the judgment] A.B.L. v. Khalid Mahmood 2009 CLC 308 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Plaintiff filing suit for cancellation of cheque before Civil Court---Defendant filing another suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. on basis of same cheque before the Additional District Judge---Sessions Judge consolidated both suits before the Additional District Judge---Legality---Such consolidation of suits before one court was not competent because nature, procedure and jurisdiction of the two suits and the courts were different---Impugned order could not be termed to be justified, hence the same was set aside with a direction to respective Courts to carry on the proceedings in the suit as per prescribed procedure---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5 and 9 of the judgment] A.B.L. v. Khalid Mahmood 2009 CLC 308 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115(1)--- Suo motu revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court possessed such jurisdiction, in exercise of which it could rectify any illegality or material irregularity found in any judgment or order of Lower Court. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334; Ilam Din v. Hassan Din and others PLD 2006 Lah. 121; Mahram Khan v. Fateh Khan and 3 others 2003 CLC 1434 and Allah Ditta v. Lahore Development Authority and 5 others 2012 CLC 271 rel. Mian Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Nemo (Still ex parte) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st April, 2014. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Vehari, whereby a suit filed by the petitioner, against the respondent, for cancellation of cheque has been withdrawn from the court of learned Civil Judge, Vehari, and transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge at Vehari, where another suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., filed by the respondent, against the petitioner, in respect of the same cheque was sub judice. 2. Arguments heard and record perused. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent, whereby he sought cancellation of the cheque No. 28710043, dated 8.11.2003 valuing Rs.2,00,000/-. The said suit was pending in the Civil Court at Vehari, when the respondent, on the basis of the same cheque, filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., against the petitioner, which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari. 4. The petitioner, moved an application, before the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, where the above said suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, of C.P.C. was pending. Through the said application, the petitioner had sought, stay of the proceedings of the said suit, till decision of the above mentioned other suit, filed for cancellation of the cheque. The application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, through order dated 20.01.2010 and the proceedings of the suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. were stayed. 5. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application before the learned District Judge, Vehari, whereby he sought transfer of the above captioned suit for cancellation of the cheque, from the court of learned Civil Judge to the court of the learned Additional District Judge at Vehari, where the above mentioned other suit under Order XXXVII was pending. The said application was accepted through the impugned order. 6. In the light of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case titled "A.B.L. v. Khalid Mahmood" (2009 CLC 308), neither the above captioned order dated 20.01.2010, towards stay of the above mentioned suit was competent nor consolidation of both the suits before one court vide order dated 04.02.2010 was permissible, because nature, procedure and jurisdiction of the suits and the courts was different. 7. This court possesses suo motu revisional jurisdiction. In exercise of the said power, the court can suo motu rectify any illegality or material irregularity found in any judgment or order of lower court. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the cases titled "Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs" (1992 SCMR 2334), "Ilam Din v. Hassan Din and others" (PLD 2006 Lahore 121), "Mahram Khan v. Fateh Khan and 3 others" (2003 CLC 1434) and "Allah Ditta v. Lahore Development Authority and 5 others" (2012 CLC 271). 8. In exercise of the above mentioned jurisdiction, when the above mentioned order dated 20.01.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby till decision of the suit for cancellation of the cheque, the proceedings in other suit filed under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. have been stayed, has been adjudged and evaluated, the same in the light of the above stated dictum (2009 CLC 308) has been found to be unwarranted under the law. 9. As a result of the above mentioned discussion, both the above said orders could not be termed to be justified, hence are set aside, with a direction to the respective courts to carry on the proceedings in the suits, as per the prescribed procedure. MWA/A-62/L Revision accepted.