2003 PLP 1176 (MLD)

Said Tahar Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 40th March, 2003. Revision Petition No. 143 of 2002 filed by Haji Farid Khan, petitioner is directed against the order of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi. Swat in Civil Suit No.139/1 decided on 10-1-2002, whereby the application of defendant/petitioner for returning the plaint for want of jurisdiction was rejected.

2. Precisely narrated facts of the case are that Mamoonur Rashid Khan and others plaintiffs instituted suit on 20-11-2002 against Haji Farid Khan defendant for grant of permanent injunction and recovery of an amount of Rs.18,00,000 as damages stated to have been caused to the orchard of the plaintiffs on account of emission of smoke etc., from the adjoining brick kiln of the defendant. During pendency of the suit an application was moved on 3-7-2001 for rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The application having been seriously opposed was rejected through the impugned order and the civil Court was found to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. Haji Farid Khan, feeling aggrieved has filed instant revision petition which is before us for consideration.

4. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the propriety and legality of the impugned order principally on the ground that the PEPA Act of 1997 (XXXIV of 1997) duly extended to District Swat/PATA, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of environmental problem and that in the presence of special law, the learned trial Judge has proceeded on wrong premises to assume the jurisdiction and entertain the suit. The learned counsel maintained that Environmental Tribunals have been constituted with exclusive jurisdiction to try serious offences under the Act and an aggrieved person can file a complaint with the Tribunal after giving 30 days notice to the Federal Agency or the Provincial Agency concerned. The learned counsel reiterated that instead of having recourse to the Tribunal to redress grievance the respondents have directly approached the Civil Court without any justifiable reasons and the Civil Court was not possessed of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4-A. Mr. Said Tahar Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for its sustenance.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on the file and we find that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reliefs claimed in the plaint, the learned trial Judge was quite justified to hold that Civil Court is possessed of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is true that Environmental Tribunals have been constituted to deal with matters of environmental pollution etc., but the fact cannot be lost sight of that in view of the reliefs contained in the plaint including recovery damages etc., the Civil Court is possessed of jurisdiction and the learned trial Judge had justifiable reasons to decline to accept the application for rejection of plaint for lacks of jurisdiction. The suit could not be buried in its inception without affording the opposite party a reasonable opportunity to file written statement and adduce evidence in support of its claim. The impugned order is unexceptional and hardly requires interference of this Court. The revision petition is bereft to substance. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./802/P Petition dismissed.