2013 PLP 2030 (CLD)

KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.

Through the present appeal, the order dated 18-7-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rawalpindi has been challenged whereby he returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the present petitioner filed a civil suit for damages amounting to Rs.15 Millions on the ground that he was illegally arrested by the respondents due to which his right of liberty was curtailed and he was subjected to mental torture, loss of reputation, etc. The case of the plaintiff was that he obtained a loan from the defendants but he was illegally arrested by the respondents due to which he suffered the loss as mentioned above and on this basis he was entitled for the decree of Rs.15 Millions as damages. The suit was resisted by the defendants who filed the written statement challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The learned trial Court vide the impugned order observed as under:-- "As per provision of Section 7 of the 'Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, jurisdiction of this court is barred. Resultantly, on account of lack of jurisdiction plaint is hereby returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation before the competent court, of jurisdiction."

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dispute was not of financial liability but was of that he was illegally arrested and had suffered a loss to his reputation, liberty, mental torture, etc. and it was only the civil court which had the jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon Mehr Ashiq Hussain v. Citi Bank (2006 CLD 167).

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that under section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred and placed reliance upon the case of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Yar Muhammad (2004 CLD 1084).

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. There is no denial of the fact that the present suit was not with regard to any financial liability. The suit was for damages i.e. under the torts on the ground that he had been illegally arrested and was sent to jail and he suffered a loss to his reputation, liberty, etc. In this way, the provisions of section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were not applicable. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents has very distinguishable facts. It was only the civil court who had the jurisdiction to decide the suit for damages. In a case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 2006 CLD 167 (Lahore), the cheque presented by the plaintiff was dishonoured and so he filed suit for damages for torts before the Banking Court which plaint was returned. This Court in the said case observed as under:-- "Suit filed by plaintiff was simple suit for recovery, of damages on the basis of torts, which was excluded from the jurisdiction of Banking Court and so the plaint was rightly returned to plaintiff for filing before the appropriate forum." This judgment also shows that if the suit is simple for damages then it .is only the civil court which had the jurisdiction. This being so, this appeal is allowed with the result that the order dated 18-7-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction that it should proceed with the case in accordance with law. KMZ/M-163/L Appeal allowed.