2010 PLP 391 (YLR)

MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 30-6-2007 whereby learned Additional District Judge has upheld the order of Civil Court dated 3-4-2007 in the suit. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, that the gist of both the orders impugned is that the courts have observed that the case is between the private patties and contractual amount as coming out from the plaint is Rs.64,462, therefore, case falls within the jurisdiction of court of small claims and normal civil court has no jurisdiction and plaint has been returned on that account for presentation before the court of small claims. Learned counsel points out the prayer in the suit and submits that Government officials are necessary party as some direction has also been sought against them and further the law of Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002 has not been enforced in the entire Province by allocating jurisdiction and nomination of courts. He submits that observation of both the learned lower courts is incorrect as when there is Government official then by virtue of section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, first class civil court will have the jurisdiction which enjoy unlimited pecuniary powers. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the revision by pointing out section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and has also submitted the notification dated 6-5-2006 issued by the Law Secretary, Government of Sindh and states that the said law has not been enforced, as per his information collected so far in the rest of Sindh except Karachi. After hearing the learned counsel it appears that in the suit following prayers have been made: ' (a) To direct the defendants to perform the above alleged contract and get the suit land mutated in the name of plaintiff in case of failure, the Nazir of court may be pleased to complete the same accordingly. (b) To cancel the above alleged entries of the defendants 3 to 6 from the revenue record. Mukhtiarkar, Rohri has been made as a respondent No.2 while Province of Sindh is also a party. In the above suit, it appears that not only the contractual obligations are to be performed for which specific performance has been asked for but direction has also been sought from the Government functionary i.e. Mukhtiarkar to cancel alleged entry of respondents Nos.3 to 6 from the revenue record. In such a situation, section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 will come into play, which is as follows:

24. Civil Court having unlimited jurisdiction regarding value to try suits against the State and its servants in their official capacity.--(1) No Civil Court not having jurisdiction in original suits without limit as regards value and no Court of the Small Causes shall receive, entertain or register any suit in which Pakistan or any of its Provinces or public officer as defined in clause (17) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908) in his official capacity is a party. It has further been observed that the notification submitted today is in respect to the enforcement of Small Claims and Minor Offences Ordinance, 2002, to the extent of Karachi and Malir only but not rest of the Sindh while in other districts the position of Minor Claims Court is not clear. In such a situation, when the prayer touches the intention of legislation as envisaged by section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance then the case is to be filed, which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. In this suit Province of Sindh is a party and Government functionary Mukhtiarkar is also a party against whom some directions have been sought. In such a situation, this revision is allowed, both the orders of lower courts dated 3-4-2007 and 30-6-2007, are set aside with the direction that the civil court to continue the proceedings and proceed with the case on merits. H.B.T./S-111/K Revision allowed.