1991 PLP 1750 (CLC)

(a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 4‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 10 O.XXXVII. Rr.l 2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Return of plaint‑‑‑Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan of Rs.8,500 based on Promissory Note, filed by plaintiff under summary jurisdiction, was returned by District Court to be prevented to Court of competent jurisdiction which in view of nature of claim in suit was the Conciliation Court‑‑‑Suit admittedly based on contract and falling within pecuniary jurisdiction of Conciliation Court, was rightly returned as in view of nature of claim, same fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Conciliation Court and Civil Court before which same was taken was bereft of jurisdiction to try it.‑‑‑[Jurisdiction]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑

O.XXXVII, R.1‑‑‑Summary jurisdiction of Court for of suits under OXXXVII, C.P.C. was not exclusive, but provisions of OXXXVII, C.P.C. were enabling‑‑‑Party can either institute suit under the provisions of OXXXVII, C.P.C. or file same under ordinary procedure‑‑‑Both courses were open to claimant and it was for him to decide which course he should adopt‑‑‑No legal compulsion to restrict the choice of party exists. Syed Masood Ahmad Gillani for Appellant. Date of hearing: 30th September, 1991. Plaint in the civil suit for recovery of Rs.8,500 based on promissory note filed under summary jurisdiction under Order XXXVII Civil, P.C., in the District Court was returned under Order VII, rule 10 Civil P.C. for its presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction because jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit was expressly barred in section 3(a) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 read with clause (1), section B of Part 1 of the Schedule which says that suit for the recovery of money due "on contracts, receipts or other documents upto a specified monetary limit (ten thousand rupees) in case of urban areas shall be referred to Conciliation Court under the aforesaid Ordinance. There is not much dispute that the instant civil suit seeking recovery of the stated amount was based "on contract" and fell within limit set on pecuniary jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court. Therefore, jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit was excluded. under sections 3 and 4 of the aforesaid Ordinance, monetary claim is compulsorily referable to and triable by Conciliation Court and no other Court shall have jurisdiction to try any such case. Exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court spelled out in the Ordinance are inapplicable to the case in hand. Contention that ouster of jurisdiction is not attracted to the suits filed in summary jurisdiction under Order XXXVII, Civil P.C., has little merit to commend. Section 3 of the Ordinance which referred to jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court applied with full force notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Procedure Code. Further, it is a fallacy to think that summary jurisdiction for trial of specified classes of suits under Order XXXVII is exclusive. Its provisions are enabling. It is open to a party either to institute the suit under Order XXXVII Civil P.C. or file it under ordinary procedure. Both courses are open to him and it is for him to decide which course he shall adopt. There is no legal compulsion to restrict his choice. Be that as it may, ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regard to a monetary claim falling within. the purview of Conciliation Courts Ordinance is both complete and unambiguous. It applied with full force to the claim filed under summary jurisdiction or ordinary procedure. Upon the averments in the plaint, jurisdiction to try the suit was barred. Learned counsel has failed to convince me that the appellant's suit was not based on contract, receipt or other document and, therefore, was excluded from the purview of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance. On my own reading of the contents of the plaint and the nature of the claim in it is clear to me that it fell within the exclusive purview of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance and the trial Court before which the suit was taken was bereft of jurisdiction to try it. Upon this view, there is little merit in the appeal. It is liable to dismissal summarily. H.B.T./S‑980/L Appeal dismissed.