1. ' Appellant has challenged the order, dated 31-5-2000 passed by the District Judge Karachi East (respondent) whereby returning the succession petition of the appellant for presentation before the concerned Court at Islamabad.
2. ' The appellant has applied for grant of succession certificate under the provision of section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 in respect of certain debts and securities left by deceased father Haji Iqbal Ahmed Qadri son of late Haji Ahmed Hussain who had expired at Karachi on 13-11-1999.
3. ' The contention of the appellant is that the debts and securities originally belong to deceased Noor Ahmed Qadri brother of Haji Iqbal Ahmed, who expired at Islamabad on 9-2-1992, therefore, late Haji Iqbal Ahmed applied for grant of succession certificate at Islamabad being Succession Application No,316 of 1997 before the Senior Civil Judge Islamabad. The petitioner is said to be allowed and succession certificates were issued on 27-11-1999 and 23-12-1997 respectively in favour of the deceased Haji Iqbal Ahmed who obtained the amount lying in the Bank accounts/lockers but failed to get an amount of Defence Saving Certificates and Khas Deposit Certificates due to his illness valued at Rs,150,000.
4. 'Learned District Judge Karachi, East (respondent) after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant came to the conclusion that since the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge Islamabad has been invoked in respect of the assets and securities left by the original deceased Noor Ahmed Qadri and the amount lying in the Bank locker has been obtained, therefore, it would be proper for the appellant to approach that Court and ordered that the petition be returned to the petitioner/appellant for presentation before the concerned Court for further orders. ##ES## ' Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention on section 5(2) of the Succession Act, 1925 by contending that the Succession to the immovable property in Pakistan of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of Pakistan, wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time or his death. Succession to the movable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which person had his domicile at the time of his death. He has further drawn my attention on section 371 of the Succession Act, 1925 contending that the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death or if at the time he had no fixed place of residence. The District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found may grant a succession certificate under this Part.
5. ' Learned Addl. A.-G. Appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order, dated 31-5- 2000.
6. ' I have gone through the section 5(2) of the Succession Act, 1925 which relates to succession to the immovable property in Pakistan of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of Pakistan wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time of his death and movable property of person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which person had his domicile at the time of his death. In the present case debts and securities left by the deceased Haji Iqbal Ahmed Qadri are admittedly lying at Islamabad and, therefore, section 5(2) of the Succession Act, 1925 is not supporting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. As far as section 371 of the Succession Act, 1925 is concerned it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge where deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death. Section 371 also defines that the District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, can grant certificate under this part and in the instant case, the property of the deceased i.e, debts/securities admittedly are lying at Islamabad and, therefore, even this section is not helping the learned counsel for the appellant and I see no reason to interfere with the order, dated 31-5-2000 passed by the learned District Judge Karachi, East and appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. However, the appellant is at liberty to present this petition before the competent Court of law.