1991 PLP 797 (MLD)

Through this Constitutional Petition, Allah Bakhsh, petitioner, seeks declaration to the effect that the judgment/decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, respondent No.3, is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition, briefly, are that the petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.5,000/- as compensation/damages to his crops before the Chairman, Union Council, Shadoo Khan, Tehsil and District Layyah, against Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh, respondents Nos.1 and

2. The suit was decreed ex parte on 15-6-1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh, respondents, filed a revision, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah on 15-7-1990, on the ground that since the claim of the applicant was not based on any written contract, therefore, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court to try the same. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the suit filed by the petitioner falls in section B, Part I of the Schedule of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1965, therefore, the same could only be referred to Conciliation under Conciliation of Courts Ordinance, 1961, and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try it and that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge is totally against the facts and law. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the suit of the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.5,000 as damages to his crops as a result of the act of the respondents/defendants demolishing the water-course falls under the category of suit mentioned at No.3 of Section B of Part I of the Schedule and not under the category of suit mentioned at No.1 of Section B of the Schedule and, as such, the same was exclusively triable by the Conciliation Court and not by the Civil Court. The relevant provisions of law may be re-produced advantageously:-- "S.3.--Cases referable to Conciliation--(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Act V of 1908):-- (a) all cases falling under Part I of the Schedule shall, save as otherwise provided, hereinafter be referred to Conciliation under this Ordinance, and no civil or criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to try any such case." SCHEDULE Part-I. Section B--Civil cases. (1) "Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents. (2) Suit for the recovery of movable property, or for the value thereof. (3) Suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging movable property."

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the petition is accepted and the judgment/decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, respondent No.3, is declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Since the learned Additional District Judge has not decided the revision on merits, so the case is remanded to him for fresh decision of the revision petition on merits in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. AA./A-1181/L Case remanded.