Wrong forum appeal | The Supreme Court declared the time barred appeal to be reinstated due to the file in the wrong court. The appeal was filed in the wrong court due to violation of financial jurisdiction, which the Supreme Court acknowledged the error of the court and the staff and returned it to the Lahore High Court. referred to for the appeal to be heard on merits. 2024


	The Supreme Court declared the time barred appeal to be reinstated due to the file in the wrong court. The appeal was filed in the wrong court due to violation of financial jurisdiction, which the Supreme Court acknowledged the error of the court and the staff and returned it to the Lahore High Court. referred to for the appeal to be heard on merits.		2024

اس کیس میں اپیل غلط عدالت میں فائل کر دی گئی تھی، جبکہ اسے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں دائر کیا جانا چاہیے تھا۔

درخواست گزار فقیر محمد نے ابتدائی طور پر اپیل ایک ایسی اپیلٹ عدالت میں دائر کی جہاں اس کا دائرہ اختیار نہیں تھا، یعنی یہ عدالت اس معاملے کو سننے کا اختیار نہیں رکھتی تھی۔ بعد میں، جب معاملہ سامنے آیا کہ اپیل غلط فورم پر دائر کی گئی ہے، تو اسے واپس کر دیا گیا تاکہ درست فورم یعنی لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں دائر کیا جا سکے۔

سپریم کورٹ نے اس معاملے میں فیصلہ دیا کہ عدالت اور اس کے عملے کو اپیل دائر کرتے وقت اس غلطی کا نوٹس لینا چاہیے تھا تاکہ درخواست گزار کو وقت اور حق میں نقصان نہ ہو۔

اس مقدمے میں سوال یہ تھا کہ اپیل غلط فورم پر دائر کی گئی تھی، اور اس حوالے سے عدالت اور اس کے عملے کی ذمہ داری کیا ہے۔ سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اپیل دائر کرتے وقت عدالت اور اس کے عملے کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ اپیل کی فائل کو اچھی طرح سے جانچیں تاکہ یہ یقینی بنایا جا سکے کہ اپیل درست فورم پر دائر کی گئی ہے۔ اگر فورم یا دائرہ اختیار کے حوالے سے کوئی شک ہو تو متعلقہ عدالت کے اہلکار کو فوراً اعتراض اٹھانا چاہیے اور عدالت کی توجہ اس جانب مبذول کروانی چاہیے تاکہ اپیل غلط فورم پر دائر ہونے سے روکی جا سکے۔ اس صورت میں جب غلط فورم پر اپیل دائر کی گئی اور عدالت کے عملے کی غفلت کی وجہ سے بروقت اعتراض نہیں اٹھایا گیا، تو اپیل کنندہ کو نقصان اٹھانا پڑا۔

سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب عدالت یا اس کا عملہ کوئی غلطی کرے، تو اس کا نقصان کسی فریق کو نہیں ہونا چاہیے ("actus curiae neminem gravabit" کا اصول)۔ لہٰذا، سپریم کورٹ نے پٹیشن منظور کرتے ہوئے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور معاملہ دوبارہ ہائی کورٹ کو بھجوا دیا تاکہ اسے میرٹ پر سنا جا سکے۔

2024 S C M R 107

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Yahya Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ

FAQIR MUHAMMAD---Petitioner

Versus

KHURSHEED BIBI and others---Respondents

Civil Petitions Nos. 1877-L and 1878-L of 2016, decided on 26th September, 2023.

(Against the Judgments dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No. 459 and R.F.A. No. 460 of 2011)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XLI, Rr. 1, 3 & 9---Appeal from original decree---Examination of memo of appeal and supporting documents---Jurisdiction, question of---Duty of Court and its staff---Scope---Order XLI, Rules 1, 3 & 9 of C.P.C. emphasize the onerous duty of the Court, including the Officer of the Appellate Court or any staff member of the Court (clerk of court/ chief ministerial officer) who has been authorized and assigned the task to accept the presentation of the memo of appeal before admission to diligently examine the memo of appeal, and judgment and decree, including all supporting documents, to ensure that everything is in order, and, if there is any doubt in the mind of the concerned Court clerk/official with regard to jurisdiction, they should raise the objection(s) and bring it to the attention of the Court to resolve it; and if the Court concludes at the time of admission that the appeal has been filed at the wrong forum, whether due to lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, or some other ancillary or incidental reasons, the memo of appeal should be promptly returned to the appellant to elect the right remedy and forum to avoid rendering the decision of the Court coram non judice at the end of the day.

(b) Jurisdiction---

----Principle---Parties cannot, by mutual consent, take away the jurisdiction vested in any Court of law, nor can they confer jurisdiction to any Court not vested in it by law.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XLI, Rr. 1, 3 & 9---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5---Choosing or opting the wrong forum to present an appeal---Duty of Court and its staff---Scope---Without a doubt, it is the responsibility of the appellant and, more importantly, of their counsel, being a legal expert, to oversee and ensure after due diligence that the appeal is being preferred before the right forum without any deficiency or oversight of jurisdiction and advise the client accordingly, but at the same time, it is also the bilateral and collaborative responsibility of the concerned Court staff not to sit as a silent spectator, but to also examine the memo of appeal diligently and conscientiously at the time of its first -presentation in the Court i.e. before the stage of admission and raise objections immediately in writing, if any, with regard to jurisdiction and then invite the attention of the Court so that if the Court, after a preliminary hearing of the advocate or appellant, deems it fit to return the memo of appeal for presentation before the competent Court, the exercise should be done immediately rather than devastating or wrecking the residual period of limitation to approach the right forum---In the present case as far as the defect of choosing or opting the wrong forum to present the appeals was concerned, the circumstances reveal that the petitioner was not solely responsible, rather it was due to the inadvertence of the Appellate Court's staff that the question of pecuniary jurisdiction was not highlighted at the very initial stage in order to cure the defect within the period of limitation allowed for filing the appeals---Appellate Court at the final stage of the case when the appeals had, in all respects, ripened for hearing and its logical finale, returned the memos of appeal on its own motion, after a considerable period, for presentation in the High Court and consigned the files to the record room---High Court was required to consider the fault committed by the Appellate Court on account of which the petitioner had been made to suffer and whether the benefit of the principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" should be extended or not, and whether the petitioner had made out the case for condonation with sufficient cause or failed to make out a case in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Petitioner had been pursuing the matter diligently and his application for condonation of delay was dismissed without any convincing justification---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, impugned judgment was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the High Court.

Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi and others PLD 2016 SC 872 ref.

(d) Administration of justice---

----No injury or prejudice should be caused to anyone by any fault, act or omission of the Court.

Mrs. Kausar Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Mian Shahid Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.