1994MLD268 (PLP)

This petition in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court was against an order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore passed in appeal by which he dismissed an appeal preferred in his Court under section 8 of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 and maintained the decision of Conciliation Court awarding a decree of Rs.4,000 to respondent No.1. Petitioner purchased some property at Lahore. A sale-deed was executed in his favour by the owner of the property. It was duly registered in the office of the Registrar. Respondent No.1 had acted as an agent for bringing about the sale of the property in favour of the petitioner. He was a property dealer. A sum of Rs.7,5W was fixed as commission-fee of respondent No.1. Rs.3,5W were paid to him, Rs.4,000 were outstanding. Respondent presented a petition to Chairman, Arbitration Council, Metropolitan Corporation Halqa 89, Lahore for recovery of his outstanding remuneration from the petitioner. After going through the usual formalities, the Conciliation Court gave decree for the above sum to respondent No.1 against the petitioner. The decision of the Conciliation Court was in the ratio of 3:

2. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree of the Conciliation Court under section 8 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1%1 in the Court of learned District Judge, Lahore. It was heard by learned Senior Civil Judge who dismissed it, on 12-4-1993: Thereupon, a revision petition was filed in this Court. No revision lies to this Court under the provisions of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. Only a right of single appeal was conferred by the ordinance. Appeal, review and revision were substantive remedies and unless expressly conferred by law, those could not be assumed to exist. I have looked in vain for discovering of a remedy in revision in the aforesaid ordinance. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that remedy in revision to this court was absent in the Ordinance. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not demur to the objection and readily conceded it. However, he soon orally requested for treating the revision petition as a petition under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. There was no bar for acceding to his request. Consequently, the prayer was allowed, subject to payment of required, Court-fee of Rs.100 by the petitioner. The required court fee stamp was filed in Court. It was urged at the hearing by learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no contract in writing for raising monetary liability, the Conciliation Court was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim. In this behalf, learned counsel referred to section B-Civil Cases, Part I of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance and also relied upon cases in Ayeb Ali and another v. Chairman, Choto-Katra Union committee conciliation Court and another PLD 1966 Dacca 125, Zamiruddm Ahmad v. Havas Khan PLD 1969 SC 57 and Patharia v. The District Judge, Montgomery and 2 others PLD 1975 Lahore

588. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the Government had by a notification fixed the remuneration of commission-agents and this being a document in writing was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Conciliation Court to entertain, try and decide the monetary claim put before it by respondent No.1. However, learned counsel for respondent No-1 was constrained to admit that there was no contract in writing between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for payment of commission-fee in respect of the sale of property in favour of the petitioner. Since the point touching jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court to try the claim in the above perspective had not received adequate attention of the lower appellate Court in the appeal filed before it and as I propose to remit the matter to it for its reconsideration, it shall be inexpedient to finally express on merits of this contention. It could not be outrightly said that the contention had. no substance at all in it. It had its own weight and was prima facie supported by the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There were other points for consideration in the appeal also and those, in the opinion of learned counsel for the petitioner, had also escaped attention of the learned lower appellate Court. In these circumstances, it shall be appropriate to permit another opportunity to the learned lower appellate Court to re-examine the basic issues arising for decision in the appeal afresh in light of the provisions of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1991 as interpreted in the decided cases by the superior Courts. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct re-hearing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law by the learned Judge below. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Parties shall appear before the Court below on 6-11-1993. In case, any of them fails to appear on appointed date of hearing, the Court shall issue a process for securing his presence before it. Records be returned. A.A./M-1250/L Case remanded.