1985 PLP 364 (MLD)
Maulvi MEHRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 364 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | Maulvi MEHRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 364 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 364 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 364 (MLD) (Maulvi MEHRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rasheed Murtaza Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3(1) (a) and Schedule, Part 1, Section B, subsection (1)- Conciliation Courts, jurisdiction of--Word 'contract', interpretation of- Word 'contract' stated in Part 1, Section B, subsection (1) of Sched. appended to Ordinance, 1961 evidently contemplated only 'written contract' and not 'oral contract'--Conciliation Courts, held, had no jurisdiction to decide suits founded on oral contracts.--[Words and phrases]. Zarnir ud Din Ahmad v. Havas Khan P L D 1969 S C 57 rel.
Judgment & Decree
At the instance of Shah Muhammad son of Ibrahim, the Chairman Union Committee No. 20, Lyallpur, passed an ex parte decree for a sum of Rs.610 against the present petitioner. The claim represented the wages of respondent No.
1. Despite stated service the petitioner failed to put appearance before the Conciliation Court. Consequently an ex parte decree as stated above had been passed. Revision, against, the order of the Conciliation Court did not succeed and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lyallpur on 29-6-1967.
2. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed with prayer that both the orders one passed by the Conciliation Court ex parte dated 18-11-1966 and other passed by the Additional District Judge, dated 29-6-1967 be declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and seen the record. Respondents despite service are not present. Hence ex parte proceedings are taken against them.
4. The sole point involved in this writ petition is whether the Conciliation Court had any jurisdiction to proceed to decide a claim which is not based in writing. The case definitely falls in part I subsection (2) of section 'B' of the schedule appended to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. Section 'B' subsection (I) reads:- "suit for recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents." In case of Union and Town .Committee when the amount claimed or the price of moveable property does not exceed Rs.1000". The word contract in the above stated subsection (I) is placed in company with receipts or other documents. Evidently the association of words gives an idea that the contract spoken of in subsection (I) is a contract in writing. The present claim is based on oral transaction and as such is not covered by .subsection (1) of section 'B' of the schedule. I am supported in my view by reference to the case of Zamir ud Din Ahmad v. Havas Khan P L D 1969 S C 57.
5. For the foregoing discussion, I accept this writ petition, set aside both the orders passed by the Conciliation Court dated 18-11-1966 and the learned Additional District Judge, dated 29-6-1969 and dismiss the claim made by the respondent No. 1 before the Conciliation Court. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest no order as to costs is called for. M. B. A.