Territorial Jurisdiction in Partition & Administration Suits in Pakistan – Scope of Order II Rule 2 CPC and Record Summoning
Partition Suit in Civil Law – Key Principles and Court’s Approach
2025 CLC 1482 (Peshawar High Court)
---
تعارف
پارٹیشن سوٹ (Partition Suit) وہ دعویٰ ہوتا ہے جس میں شریک ورثاء یا شریک مالکان کسی جائیداد کو باقاعدہ طور پر تقسیم کرانے کے لیے عدالت سے رجوع کرتے ہیں۔ پاکستان کی عدالتیں اس قسم کے مقدمات میں بار بار واضح کر چکی ہیں کہ ہر شریک مالک کو اپنے حصے کے مطابق قبضہ اور ملکیت کا حق حاصل ہے۔
---
کیس کے حقائق
درخواست گزاران نے مشترکہ جائیداد کی تقسیم کے لیے عدالت سے رجوع کیا۔
مؤقف یہ تھا کہ جائیداد وراثت میں ملی ہے اور اب تمام شریک ورثاء کا اپنا اپنا حصہ الگ ہونا چاہیے۔
مخالف فریق کی طرف سے یہ مؤقف آیا کہ مقدمہ قبل از وقت یا ناقابل سماعت ہے۔
---
عدالت کے اہم نکات
1. High Court نے قرار دیا کہ ہر شریک مالک بنیادی طور پر اپنی جائیداد کے حصے کا حق رکھتا ہے، اور وہ کبھی بھی تقسیم کے لیے عدالت جا سکتا ہے۔
2. High Court نے قرار دیا کہ پارٹیشن سوٹ نہ تو قبل از وقت ہوتا ہے اور نہ ہی ناقابل سماعت، جب تک جائیداد مشترکہ حالت میں ہے۔
3. High Court نے قرار دیا کہ پارٹیشن مقدمہ مسترد کرنے کی بجائے اس پر فیصلہ ہونا ضروری ہے تاکہ ہر شریک مالک کو انصاف ملے۔
---
عملی نتائج
شریک ورثاء کو مشترکہ جائیداد میں اپنا حصہ الگ کرانے کا قانونی حق ہے۔
پارٹیشن سوٹ عدالت کے دائرہ اختیار میں ہمیشہ قابل سماعت ہے۔
مقدمہ خارج کرنے کی بجائے عدالت کا فرض ہے کہ تقسیم کرائے۔
---
نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ اس بات کو مزید پختہ کرتا ہے کہ پارٹیشن سوٹ ایک قابلِ سماعت دعویٰ ہے اور ہر شریک ورثاء کو جائیداد کی علیحدہ تقسیم کا قانونی حق حاصل ہے۔
---Must read judgement
2025 CLC 1490
[Islamabad]
Before Inaam Ameen Minhas, J
Mrs. ANJUM MALIK and others ---Petitioners
versus
Mst. NEELOFER MALIK through
L.Rs and others ---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2043 of 2021, decided on 28th March, 2025.
CLC
[Vol. XLVI
2005
Anjom Malik v. Neelofer Malik (Inaam Ameen Minhas, J)
1491
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
payment of und to hay Subsequen rict Jude in a case dment had nothing on ent. Only a me willing decreed ncessional ment was rporation mated two of this failed to visional ordingly
led by is earned to file C missing of a
missed.
St. 17 & 21 & O. XVI, R. 14-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), St. 42 & 54-Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S. 278-Suit for declaration, permanent injunction seeking administration, rendition of accounts, partition of several properties---Territorial jurisdiction---Scope-Application for summoning/calling of record filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed by the Trial Court---Contention of the petitioners was that such an application could not be allowed as the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit-Validity-Suit in the Trial Court was regarding the partition of several properties situated in the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts, thus, under S. 17, C.P.C. the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit for partition relating to all properties because these properties would be considered as a portion of the suit property-Suit for partition of the suit property (a portion of properties required to be partitioned) was based upon the cancellation of gift deed and custodian of the record of the gift deed, who had also been arrayed as defendant, did not produce the record of the gift deed, thus, it was necessary to call the record of the gift deed so as to reach a just decision in the suit---Suit for administration could be instituted within the territorial jurisdiction of any Court where any part of the deceased's estate is located, which principle was well established under the law governing civil suits and succession matters---Administration suit differs from a partition suit in legal scope and effect---While a partition suit primarily seeks the division of specific joint property among co-owners, an administration suit covers a broader scope, including the identification, valuation, management, distribution and settlement of liabilities of the deceased's estate in accordance with succession laws, thus, in view of the legal distinction between these two types of suits and the jurisdictional principles governing administration suits, the suit was rightly instituted within the appropriate jurisdiction, considering the location of the deceased's assets and the Trial Court lawfully assumed the jurisdiction--Under S. 21, C.P.C., an objection to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible stage before the Trial Court and pursued diligently and in the absence of such persistent agitation, a party cannot later challenge the jurisdiction of the court after having willingly participated in the proceedings-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (pp. 1494, 1497] A, B, C & E.
Amjad Khan v. Muhammad Irshad (Deseased) 2020 SCMR 2155
rel.
[Vol. XLVII
CIVIL LAW CASES
1492
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-O. II, R. 2-Application for summoning/calling of record... Objection qua maintainability of such an application was raised that since the plaintiff had already filed an application for summoning record of some other properties without mentioning the record sought to be summoned in the latter application, thus, under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C., latter application was not maintainable---Validity---Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C., contains word "suit" and word "application" is not mentioned in the same, thus, the same does not apply in the case of an application. [p. 1496] D
Abdur Rashid Awan for Petitioners.
Ch. Sajid Abdullah Sraa, Ehsan Ullah Sial and Imran Khan Jadoon for Respondents Nos. 1A and 1B.
Khurram Mahmood Qureshi for Respondent No. 5.
Zulfiqar Ali Abbasi and Shahid Munir for Respondent No. 7.
Mirza Jameel Baig for Respondent No. 8-A.
Ex-parte for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6, 8-B to 8-D and 9 to 11.
Date of hearing: 4th March, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment