ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.S-2148 of 2017

Mst. Shahana

Versus

Muhammad Ovais & another

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of CMA 4033/18

2. For hearing of CMA 4034/18

Date of hearing: 09.05.2018

Mr. Abdul Hakeem for petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Naeem Memon a/w Mr. Mujahid Ali Thebo for respondent No.1.

-.-.-

Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.- This petition was dismissed on 12.03.2018. The two Courts below gave concurrent findings against the tenant/petitioner and in consideration of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned in the order referred above, no interference was required. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed this application under section 12(2) CPC and contended that the subject premises is situated within the jurisdiction of Cantonment area and hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. It is thus a fraud committed by the respondent with the Court.

Heard the learned counsels.

Though the affidavit in support of the application also pleaded the ground as far as merit is concerned, which is immaterial, however even if the ground of jurisdiction is taken into consideration this could hardly be a case of the petitioner at this stage being a third forum. The point of jurisdiction is to be taken at the earliest. The written statement filed in response to Rent Case No.303 of 2016 is devoid of such ground being taken and so also at the appellate stage hence such question cannot be raised at this stage and that too after dismissal of the petition.

          In the case of Islam Din v. Naseer-ud-Din reported in 1995 SCMR 906 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the same issue held as under:-

“The petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. They did not raise any objection either before the Senior Civil Judge, to whom the case was transferred or before the Court of Additional District Judge, where they challenged the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge. This objection was raised before the High Court, for the first time and the same was rejected. The learn ad Single Judge (in Chambers) has observed as under:‑‑

"On a question being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that this objection was never raised by him either before the trial Court or even in appeal before the Additional District Judge. It is clear from the memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Court that order, dated 2nd April, 1990, by virtue of which evidence of the petitioners was closed, was never questioned on the ground that it was passed by a Court having no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the petitioners to raise this objection before this Court for the first time."

As observed by the High Court, the objection was purely technical. On merits, the suit had been decreed against the petitioners.

There is no error of law. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused.”

          The facts of the aforesaid case are similar to the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact this petition has already been dismissed when the said application was moved by the petitioner. The application under section 12(2) CPC thus has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. The injunction application is also dismissed as having become infructuous.

Dated: 14.05.2018                                                                      Judge