NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The petitioners herein are the vendees of the disputed land measuring 88 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in village Kang, Tehsil Daska, which was purchased on 28th March, 1967, according to them, for Rs.55,000. On 27th March, 1968 i.e. On the last date of the expiry of the period of limitation, respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot for possession of the said land, through pre-emption. In their written statement, the petitioners raised objections to the effect that the suit was filed outside the local limits of the Court, where the disputed property was situated, namely, the Court of the Civil Judge, Daska and also that it was not filed within the. In the meanwhile, the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, sent the file of the case to the learned District Judge, Sialkot for transferring the suit to the Court of the Civil Judge, Daska on 9th January, 1969. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 11th January, 1969 withdrew the suit from the file of the learned Administra--the Civil Judge, Sialkot and transferred the same to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Daska. The file of the suit was received in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Daska, on 29th January, 1969.
2. The question is whether the suit filed by the respondents must be deemed to have been instituted on 27th March, 1968, when it was filed in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, or on 29-1-1969, the date on which the file of the suit was received in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Daska? In case, the suit is deemed to have been filed on the former date it would be in the, while if the later date is taken to be the date of the institution of the suit, it would be barred by the.
3. The learned Civil Judge, Daska, in his order dated 25-9-1974 held that the suit was barred by the, while the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide his order dated 6-12-1981, reversed the said finding and held that it was within the and remanded the case to the learned trial Court (Civil Judge, Daska) for decision on the merits. The High Court has agreed with the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The answer to the problem arising in this case depends upon whether the High Court has issued any direction, within the meaning of section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot in the relevant regard.
5. It appears that a suggestion given by the learned District Judge Sialkot, in his letter No. 1930/C.II.3 dated 23-12-1966 to the High Court at Lahore "that option given to the people of Daska Tehsil to file suits either at Sialkot or at Daska be withdrawn and in future fresh institution be made onlyDaska had been accepted by the High Court, whereupon the learned District Judge had issued an administrative order dated 2-2-1967 to the effect that in future all the cases relating to Daska Tehsil will be instituted in Daska and copies of this order were endorsed to all the Civil Judges, Daska, including the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot. The question therefore, is whether, after the issuance of the said order by the learned District Judge, the Administrative Civil Judge could continue receiving civil suits relating to Daska or not? The learned Civil Judge, Daska held that he could not do so. He, accordingly, found that the suit having been instituted in the proper Court only on 29-1-1969 whereas it ought to have been instituted on or before 27-3-1968 was barred by the and was, accordingly, dismissed it on that ground.
6. The learned Additional District :fudge, in his order, dated 6-1.2-1981, took the opposite view and accordingly, held that the finding of the learned Civil Judge, Daska, that the suit instituted was barred by limitation, was not sustainable in the eye of law. The High Court agreed with the above view, but on a somewhat different ground.
7. No doubt, under the provisions of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit for the possession of immovable property has,1 subject to the pecuniary limitation, to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such immovable property is situate. As regards the local limits of the jurisdiction of a civil Court, section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, provides as follows: "10. Local limits of jurisdiction.
(1)the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge shall be such as the High Court -may define.
(2)when the High Court posts a Civil Judge to a district, the local limits of the district shall, in the absence of any direction to the contrary, be deemed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction."
A plain reading of this provision would show that ire the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, a Civil Judge posted in the district of Sialkot can competently exercise jurisdiction for purposes of section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code within the entire limits of Sialkot district including naturally cases pertaining to immovable property located in Daska tehsil of Sialkot.
8. The reason given by the High Court for upholding the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was that the intimation given by the High Court to the District Judge, Sialkot, that his suggestion contained in letter, dated 21-12-1966 had been received did not amount to direction to the contrary as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 10 of the test Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The said intimation, according to the learned Judge, was merely an order regarding distribu-- tion of work for the sake of administrative convenience amongst the Civil Judges posted in a district, who, otherwise exercised jurisdiction in the district of Sialkot.
9. The difficulty is that there is no indication in law as to how the High Court has to issue a direction to the contrary for indicating whether a Civil Judge posted to a district shall not be competent to exercise jurisdiction within the local limits of the district, in which he is posted. In this case, the learned Civil Judge was of the view that the correspondence, which passed between the District Judge and the High Court followed by the issuance of an administrative order by the District Judge to the effect that in all future cases relating to Daska tehsil will be instituted in Daska; copies of which order were endorsed to all the Civil Judges of the district amounted to a "direction to the contrary", as visualized by subsection (2) of section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. While, according to the High Court, the intimation given by it to the District Judge did not amount to such a direction and was merely an order regarding distribution of work for administrative convenience amongst the Civil Judges posted in the district.
10. We are inclined to agree with the view expressed in the judgment of the High Court that the intimation sent by the High Court to the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot to the effect that it had accepted its suggestion did not amount "any direction to the contrary". We may point out that valuable rights of the litigant public are involved, which are likely to be affected if proper publication and adequate publicity is not given to the directions of the High Court, limiting the powers of a Civil Judge posted in a district by restricting his jurisdiction to particular part of it.
Under the terms of the provisions of section 10(2) of the Ordinance, 1962, a plaintiff could justifiably consider that the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, would have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit with regard to property located in Daska tehsil of District Sialkot. Accordingly, if the jurisdiction of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, was to be restricted and any area excluded from the local limits of his jurisdiction it was necessary that this order should have been done by a notification, making it possible for all concerned to become aware of it. This should also be followed by a Press release and circulated to the Bar Associations and Civil Judges of the District including the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot. This was not done in the present case. We think, therefore, that the case of the petitioners could not be adversely affected merely because some correspondence had passed between the District Judge, Sialkot and the High Court.
11. In the circumstances of this case, no interference with the order of the High Court is called for.
This petition must, therefore, fail and is rejected accordingly.
12. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Registrar of the Lahore High Court for taking action in such matters on the lines indicated in para. 10 above.