P L D 1975 Lahore 588 (PLP)

(b) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961)

S. 3(t) & Sched.. Part I, Section B-Jurisdiction-Conciliation Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes--Limited to claims not exceeding Rs. 500-Amount of Rs. 1,000 divided by father and son to bring claim within provision of Sched., Part I, Section B-Decree of Conciliation Court, held without lawful authority and quashed.. S. M. Almas Ali for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Maqbool Hussain Shah for Respondent N0. 3. Date of hearing : 1st November 1974. This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 720 and 721 of 1964. 2. Brief facts of the two cases are that respondents Allah Bakhsh and Shahmad in the above-mentioned two writ petitions made two applications before the Chairman (Conciliation Court), Union Council No. 61 claiming that they had worked as tenants at the land of Pathana, and they were entitled to 1 /5th share as tenants. In the last year they were turned out and were not paid their remuneration. The applications by Allah Bakhsh and Shahmad were made on 24th November 1963 and 17th November 1963, respectively. Chairman (Conciliation Court) of the Union Council vine his orders dated 2nd April 1964 passed decree of Rs. 500 in favour of each of the applicants against the petitioner. The orders were ex pane since Pathana did not appear before the Court. Both these orders were challenged before the District Judge who by his two different orders dated 29,h May 1964 dismissed the revision petitions. Pathana has approached this Court by these two writ petitions under Article 98 of 1962 Constitution. 3. The sole objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the dispute between the parties falls within the ambit of section 77(3)(2),' Second Group, clause (i) of the Punjab Tenancy Apt which reads: "any other, suit between landlord and tenant arising out of the lease or conditions on which a tenancy is held" and argues that it was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. Provisions of section 3 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 do not override the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The decrees passed were, therefore, nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel for` the respondents has relied on a Division Bench judgment of the former Dacca High Court reported as Reference No. 1 of 1965 (P L D 1966 Dacca 465) and argues that such a dispute was exclusively held to be triable by the Con ciliation Court. The judgment reported has not considered any tenancy law of Bengal and only looked into provisions of Bengal Agra and Asam Civil Courts Act and Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Quest on of consideration of Punjab Tenancy Act certainly could not arise before ire learned Judges and, therefore, the dictum in this case is not attracted to the facts of the instant petitions. It was further argued that Union Council under Section B, Past I of the Schedule attached to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance bad the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute in which the amount claimed or price of movable property was not to exceed Rs. 500. In these two cases the amount of Rs. 1,000 was divided by the father and the son in order to bring the claim against the petitioner within the mischief of the provisions referred to above. After bearing arguments and perusal of the law cited above I am of the view that the orders of Conciliation Court an both the cases are without lawful authority and are to be quashed. I order accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. S. A.H Petition accepted