P L D 1966 Dacca 125 (PLP)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioners have challenged an ex parte decree passed by respondent No. 1, the Chairman, Choto‑Katra Union Committee Conciliation Court in the town of Dacca on the 28th August 1964, as having been passed without lawful authority. The case of the petitioners is that they are the sixteen annas owners of a property which has been described as holding No.

157. Birendra Bose Street, Police Station Lalbag in the town of Dacca. They came to know that respondent No. 2 had obtained a decree for Rs. 1,000 against the former in the Court of respondent, No. 1 and in execution of the said decree respondent No. 2 took steps to sell the property in Money Execution Case No. 207 of 1964 in the Court of 6th Munsif at Dacca. In course of the enquiry the petitioners came to learn that respondent No. 2 claimed certain interests in the aforesaid property by way of inheritance and on that basis had instituted a proceeding before the Conciliation Court for recovery of damages for illegal appropriation of the share of respondent No. 2 by the petitioners. The petitioners assert that respondent No. 2 is closely connected and related with the Chairman of the Conciliation Court as well as with other members of the said Court and that respondent No. 2 fraudulently and collusively managed to obtain the aforesaid ex parte decree against the petitioners illegally. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in opposition before us wherein he has asserted that he and his two sisters are the owners of 3J annas share of the aforesaid property and that the petitioners are owners of only 1211 annas share in the property. He has further stated that he has obtained a preliminary decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Dacca wherein the right of respondent No. 2 and his sisters to 3 annas 6 gandas share in the property has been declared. It is stated further that in respect of the same property respondent No. 2 had earlier obtained a similar decree from the Conciliation Court in respect of a different period. Mr. R. Huq, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that on the admitted facts of the present case the Conciliation Court had not jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. From the facts stated above it is obvious that respondent No. 2 had really asked for' recovery of damages for approximately one‑third share in the aforesaid immovable property belonging to him and his sisters which was alleged to have been in the illegal occupation of the petitioners. The damages claimed amounts to Rs. 1,

000. That being so, the matter in dispute could only come under Part II Section B of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance and could be adjudicated upon by the Conciliation Court only when the petitioners submitted to his jurisdiction by nominating his representatives to the Court. In the present case admittedly no such representative was nominated by the petitioners, and therefore, the only order that the Conciliation Court could pass was to issue a certificate under section 5 (4) (b) of the said Ordinance to the effect that the! Conciliation had failed. Confronted by this position Mr. A. T. Sadi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has contended that the matter in dispute between the parties is covered by item 1 of Section B of Part I inasmuch as respondent No. 2 has claimed certain money due on "other documents". The said item is as follows:‑

"Part I Section B‑Civil cases Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents." As has already been stated respondent No. 2 has based his claim for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 on his title to certain shares in the aforesaid immovable property which he claims has been established in a Civil Court. The money claimed by him cannot therefore, be regarded as due on "contracts, receipts or other documents". The "other documents" mentioned in Part I, Section B item I refer to documents in the nature of contracts or receipts whereon certain money becomes due to a certain person. We, therefore, do not think that this item has any application to the facts of the present case. We are supported in this view by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chama Sardar v. Chairman, No. 5 Rasulpur Union Council (17DLR 180) wherein it has been held "Suits for recovery of damages caused by wrongful posses sion of immovable property are not cognizable by the Conciliation Courts. For the reasons stated above, we make the Rule absolute and declare that the order passed by the Conciliation Court dated the 28th August 1964, in Suit No. 11 of 1964 has been passed without lawful authority and is, therefore, of no legal effect. We make no order as to costs. ABDUS SATTAR, J. ‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute.