2004 PLP 1870 (CLC)

Mumtaz Ahmad Aamir for Appellant. Faiz Ahmad, respondent was served on 11-6-2004 in the present appeal but has not appeared. So, he is proceeded ex parte.

2. The facts which have led to filing of this F.A.O. are that Hameedullah filed a suit for recovery of Rs.36,000 on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 11-1-2002, under Order XXXVII, of the C.P.C., against Faiz Ahmad, respondent. The learned Additional District Judge, who was seized of the case, by his order, dated 12-3-2004 alongwith other cases directed the return of plaint of the present suit. Aggrieved by that order, this F.A.O. has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Hameed Ullah was resident of Chak No.206-P Kot Sabzal, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan while Faiz Ahmad, defendant was resident of Mohallah Khawajghan, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan. According to the learned counsel, both these parties were residents of two different places, therefore, in the instant case, Conciliation Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon the subject-matter of this writ. He has got support from provision of section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. Therefore, the impugned order directing the return of plaint was not legal.

4. I have perused the record and heard the Learned counsel. Section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 is reproduced as below:-- "

6. Jurisdiction of Conciliation Courts, etc.

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), Conciliation Court shall be constituted and shall have jurisdiction to try a case only when the parties to dispute ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of the same Union Council in which the offence has been committed or the cause of action has arisen. (2) Where one of the parties to a dispute ordinarily resides, and the offence has been committed or the cause of action has arisen, in one ward of a city, municipality or cantonment, and the other party ordinarily resides in another ward of the same city municipality or cantonment, then a Conciliation Court may be constituted in the ward in which the offence has been committed or, as the case may be, the cause of action has arisen."

5. According to the bare reading of the above noted section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 when the plaintiff and defendant are residents of two different cities, then provision of section 6 does not apply and the Conciliation Court of either City, it may be of the plaintiff or defendant, has got no jurisdiction to receive, try or decide the case. Subsection (1) of section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 gives out that parties to the dispute, if are ordinarily residents of one and the same Union Council, in that event, it conferred jurisdiction over the parties. The other situation which it has connoted is of a City, Municipality or Cantonment, having more than one ward. In such case, if a party is ordinarily resident of one ward and the other party is resident of another ward, then the dispute is referable/triable, where the cause of action has arisen (civil nature dispute) or where the offence (criminal) has been committed. It may be clarified here that in this above noted position even, the City, Municipality or Cantonment is the one. The words "... of the same City, Municipality or Cantonment ..." (underlining is mine), used in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 are important. To borrow the support to the above noted interpretation Muhammad Shafiq v. Additional District Judge and others 1990 CLC 1108 is referred. The conclusions drawn from the above narrated discussion is that the Conciliation Court has got no jurisdiction to try the instant case. Therefore, the return of plaint in the instant case by the learned Court below was illegal and unlawful. Accordingly, by accepting the instant appeal, the order impugned to the extent of the instant case is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to consider the suit pending before it and to adjudicate it upon merits. H.B.T./H-36/L Appeal accepted.