Jurisdiction

  1. What matter has to be brought within the purview of the Administrative Court or Tribunal is not specified in the Constitution and is left to the legislature. But once that has been done all other Courts have been forbidden to entertain any proceedings in respect thereof — Once a matter has been given in the jurisdiction of such a Tribunal the jurisdiction even of the High Court is barred. Azad Government  v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (EE)
  2. Matter of determination of age for the purpose of retirement of a civil servant is one of terms and conditions of service — Jurisdiction of High Court totally ousted. Muhammad Latif Khan and others v. Muhammad Latif and another 1998 SCR 379 (B)
  3. Civil Court had jurisdiction if a case of mala fide, patent disregard of statutory provision or total absence of jurisdiction is made out. Abdul Khaliq v. Abdullah Khan  1999 SCR 174 (C)
  4. The question as to whether by mutual arrangement the parties have already partitioned their land or not should have been attended to by any of the revenue authorities. Muhammad Yousaf Khan  v. Board of Revenue and 12 others 2001 SCR 324 (E)
  5. S. 44 — Writ of mandamus issued to compel holder of public office to act in  discharge of legal duty — Writ jurisdiction available to High Court is no doubt a discretionary — Service Tribunal has been established in 1975 — After the established of Service Tribunal the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts including the High Court has been excluded in respect of matters — The Service Tribunal has not been vested with the powers to issue directions to a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of AJK to do which he is required by law to do — Such direction can be issued by the High Court — Any provision of law which takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court must be construed strictly — Jurisdiction of High Court can be taken away through some express provision. AJK Govt.  v. Shakir Shah and others 2001 SCR 352 (B)
  6. It is now a settled law that if a party submits itself before the jurisdiction of a Court and never raises the objection of lack of jurisdiction of that Court, cannot turn round with a volta-face when the judgment is given against the party to say that the Court hearing the cause had no jurisdiction to hear the same. Ajaib Hussain and another v. Zareen Akhtar and 11 others 2001 SCR 545 (A)
  7. A question of fact resolved by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be set aside by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction by substituting such finding by its own. It can only interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction if findings are based on no evidence or are against the evidence on record. Held: The High Court was not justified to sit as a Court of appeal over the finding of the Custodian. Faiz Akbar  v. Nasim Begum & 8 others 2003 SCR 240 (B)
  8. High Court lacks the jurisdiction to disturb the finding of competent authority — Writ petition is not analogous to appeal, which is continuation of the original pleadings — In the present case this Court cannot substitute its wisdom against the wisdom of competent authority. Shahista Mumtaz v. Secretary Education and 6 others 2003 SCR 446 (A)
  9. The appellant claimed remuneration for remaining period along with payment of extra ordinary amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month which he could have earned by appearing in criminal cases as by his appointment he was debarred from practicing criminal cases — This remedy cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction — The appellant, if so advised, may file a suit for the recovery of such amount along with damages from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Aurangzeb Chaudhry v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2003 SCR 463 (B)
  10. It is a universal established principle of law that the question relating to jurisdiction of any authority, Tribunal or Court is first of all to be raised before such authority, Tribunal or Court and in light of the provisions contained in the relevant law, it is their prerogative to decide the question of jurisdiction. In Re: Proceeding with regard to the provisions of S. 42 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 2004 SCR 52 (A)
  11. In ordinary dictionary meaning the word ‘jurisdiction’ is defined as power of a Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it — In other words by ‘jurisdiction’ it is meant the authority by which a Court has to decide matters which are presented before it — ‘Jurisdiction’ means the authority to hear and determine a controversy between the contesting parties — Held: The jurisdiction must be exercised by the authority or Courts strictly in the manner it is required by law — Bindera’s Interpretation of Statute & General Clauses Act relied. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K  v. Abdul Razzaq 2004 SCR 64 (A)
  12. Supreme Court has been vested with appellate jurisdiction u/s 42 of the Custodian Act — Under the Constitution Act appellant jurisdiction has been vested against the judgments of the High Court in civil and criminal matters — In certain matters right of appeal has been provided u/s 42 (11) of the Constitution — In the rest of the cases right of appeal can be availed only if leave to appeal is granted by this Court — Held: This Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction either decision of the High Court or against other Court or Tribunal which is vested in it under any other law — In AJ&K this Court is exercising appellate jurisdiction besides the decisions/orders of the High Court. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K  v. Abdul Razzaq 2004 SCR 64 (B)
  13. No objection was raised about the jurisdiction of High Court — Orders passed by the Family Courts were appealable before the Shariat Court — Through an Ordinance the right of appeal was entrusted to the High Court instead of Shariat Court — This Ordinance expired and was never re-enacted — After expiry of above Ordinance again jurisdiction of the Shariat Court automatically stood restored — The appeal should have been heard by the Shariat Court and not by the High Court as there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of the High Court — Case remanded. Muhammad Riaz v. Mst. Rubbi and 3 others 2004 SCR 76 (A)
  14. The Voice Chancellor had no jurisdictional competence to examine and determine the utilisation and usefulness of these projects as that was the job of the Selection Board — The Selection Board has early laid down about such projects that there were significant contribution in the field of electronics. University of AJK and 6 others v. Engineer Muhammad Khaild 2004 SCR 84 (B)
  15. Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Custodian recorded findings contrary to the established facts — High Court was justified in setting aside such orders to have been passed without lawful authority — High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute its findings in place of the findings recorded by the competent authority — The High Court in writ jurisdiction should not deprive the hierachy of authorities or Tribunal established under certain enactments to their jurisdiction unless, it is proved that the action challenged in writ jurisdiction is patently without jurisdiction or is coram non-judice or mala fide — If allowed to continue would be a futile exercise and result in unnecessary harassment — If the order recorded by a Tribunal or authority is contrary to record the High Court is justified in law to set at naught such findings in writ jurisdiction. Abdul Aziz and 8 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others 2004 SCR 250 (A)
  16. When a party submits itself before the jurisdiction of a Court, subsequently it cannot turn round with a volta face when judgment is recorded against such party to say that the Court deciding the dispute had no jurisdictional competence to hear the same. Khan M. Khan v. Azad Govt 2004 SCR 348 (A)
  17. The Supreme Court can interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by the Court below if it is proved that the Court having competent jurisdiction exercised its jurisdiction in a manner which can be termed as arbitrary, capricious, perverse or violative of principles relating to bail matters. Muhammad Ameen & another v. Muhammad Yaseen and another 2004 SCR 369 (B)
  18. There is a distinction between lack of jurisdiction and total lack of jurisdiction — Where only lack of jurisdiction is attributed to the authority that means that authority was exercised not in accordance with law — Before exercising jurisdiction the authority was required to fulfil certain conditions — In case of total lack of jurisdiction the authority which has passed any order was suffering from total lack of jurisdiction  to pass such order — Held: The very basic order passed by the D.E.O. was suffering from total lack of jurisdiction. Naheed Akhter v. Director Education Schools & 4 others 2004 SCR 429 (A)
  19. Objection in respect of jurisdiction of District Judge first time raised before High Court — Held: The objection at that stage of the case could not be raised — Judgment and decree passed by High Court set aside. Muhammad Rafique Butt  v. Amanat Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 144 (B)
  20. The Service Tribunal as well as other Courts are to administer the law, which of course includes the rules as they are and not as to what they should have been — If one is aggrieved of the rules for being contrary to Constitution or law, the jurisdiction of appropriate Constitutional Court can be invoked. Maqbool Hussain v. AJ&K Council & 5 others 2005 SCR 344 (B)
  21. Cause of action has accrued at Mirpur where ornaments have been taken — In view of provisions of C.P.C. the suit can be filed at Mirpur against appellant who has taken ornaments to Islamabad or at Islamabad where the appellant resides — It is option of plaintiff  where to file the suit. Madhia Aftab & 2 others v. Khawar Hanif  2006 SCR 190 (B)
  22. The Custodian under the scheme of law has got exclusive jurisdiction — Any order passed by an authority or tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction until and unless it is proved that such authority or tribunal has passed the order in excess of jurisdiction or the same is result of misreading of non-reading of evidence. Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon & 11 others 2006 SCR 22 (A)
  23. Only the High Court can issue direction and Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue any sort of direction. Azad Govt. and 3 others v. Farhat Shaheen. 2007 SCR 62 (C)  2002 SCR 399 rel.
  24. Money was borrowed at Saudi Arabia, agreement also took place there, how the Court of District Pallandri has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject matter — Held: The civil Court at Pallandri has no jurisdiction because the agreement or undertaking between the parties took place at Saudi Arabia. Muhammad Latif  Khan v. Muhammad Hanif  2007 SCR 125 (C)
  25. While resolving the question of jurisdiction the Court has to look into the averments of the plaint. In the instant case averments of the plaint have not been looked into and even the detailed facts of the case have not been mentioned by the learned Judge of the  High Court.MIt was obligatory for the learned Judge to give details of points raised and then record finding on those points. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2008 SCR 406 (C)
  26. Writ petition by civil servants — Effect of — A civil servant in AJ&K Government can file an appeal in the Service Tribunal — The civil servants is different grades cannot file a writ petition in the High Court collectively — S. 44 of the Constitution clearly provides that a writ petition can be filed by an aggrieved party when no other adequate remedy is provided by law — The civil servants of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and even in Pakistan usually file writ petitions by adding a ground of violation of fundamental rights, discrimination, unconstitutionality of some sets to avoid filing of appeal in Service Tribunal — This practice has been depreciated time and again by the superior Courts. M. Siddique Shaheen  v. Azad Govt. & others 2008 SCR 485 (B) 1991 SCMR 1941 rel.
  27. The appellants have not placed on record anything to justify that they took up the grievance with departmental authorities or with Government. Nothing has been placed on record to justify that they have been deprived of their rights admissible to other equally placed employees. They can approach the competent authority and in case an adverse order is passed against them they may approach the Service Tribunal. M. Siddique Shaheen v. Azad Govt. & others 2008 SCR 485 (C)
  28. The High Court while entertaining a grievance of a civil servant must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of civil servant or not. Muhammad Siddique Shaheen & 3 others v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2008 SCR 485 (D)
  29. Judgment of High Court dated 24.11.2006 to the extent of jurisdiction has attained finality — Question of jurisdiction cannot be reopened. Shoukat Usman v. UBL. 2010 SCR 173 (B)
  30. Question of jurisdiction has already been decided by the High Court in previous appeal — The judgment has attained finality — It is not open to raise the question of jurisdiction in the guise of other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relied upon by the defendant or the constitutional provisions on the same grounds — In both the applications jurisdiction of civil Court was challenged on the ground that remedy by way of appeal before Federal Service Tribunal is available — Held: Record reveals that appellant after termination of his service remained pursuing remedies before Bank authorities — After exhausting remedies filed the suit in the Court of District Judge Muzaffarabad on 10.10.2003, at that time U.B.L. had already been privatized and there was no bar in filing the civil suit. Shoukat Usman v. United Bank Limited and 6 others  2010 SCR 173 (D)
  31. —revenue Court—the order passed by the revenue authorities were appealable but the same have not been challenged at the proper forum within stipulated period rather the appellant tried to procure the objective through improper way, not recognized by law. The notifications of constitution of committee, 26.10.2001, and change of status of land on recommendation of committee, 14.11.2001, have rightly been set aside by the High Court. Development Authority vs Inhabitant of Village Narol 2018 SCR 253 (D)
  32. —Appellant submitted himself before the jurisdiction—-now he cannot turn round with a volta face. Mangla Metals  v. Addl. Collector Central Excise 2019 SCR 400 (D) 2001 SCR 179 & 2004 SCR 348 rel
  33.  —mode of examination— Policy Decision of University–interference by Court—not warranted with unless same is against relevant statute or discriminatory—Held: Selection of the mode of taking/conducting the examination is the policy decision of the University authorities, which cannot be interfered with ordinarily. The interference in the policy decision of any authority is only justified when it is against the relevant statute or is discriminatory. Muhammad Rashad Sulehria & 7 others v.  University of AJ&K & 2 others 2020 SCR 770 (B) AIR 2007 SC 1640 and AIR 2009 SC 2322
  34.  —mode of conducting of examination—-sole prerogative of the University Authorities, the Court cannot direct them to take examination under a particular manner. Muhammad Rashad Sulehria & 7 others v.  University of AJ&K & 2 others 2020 SCR 770 (C)
  35. — If a party submits itself before the jurisdiction of a Court, then subsequently, when the judgment is recorded against such party, it cannot be allowed to turn around with a volta-face and say that the Court deciding the dispute had no jurisdictional competence.Muhammad Sarfraz Versus Mst. Uma-e-Hani & another 2021 SCR 205 (B) 2004 SCR 348 rel.
  36. Islamic Jurisprudence
  37. —See Abdul Rehman & 5  others V. Nazim & 14 others 2020 SCR 498 (B)
error: Content is protected !!