P L D 1955 Sind 447 (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.‑This is an application under Order VI rule 11, C. P. C. and arises under the following circumstances. Abdul Habib Ahmad & Co., a firm dealing in cloth at Karachi filed a suit against the Federation of Pakistan for recovery of Rs. 4,341‑9‑0 on 17th February; 1953. The contention of the plaintiffs in brief was that the customs duty should have been according to the exchange rate prevailing on 15th December, 1949 and that the customs authorities should not have levied the customs duty at par value with the Indian Currency. The difference accord ing to the plaintiffs therefore came to Rs. 4,341‑9‑

0. The plaintiffs have alleged that if the Customs authorities had worked out the rate fixed for Indian Currency the plaintiffs would have had to pay an amount of Rs. 4,341‑9‑0 less. The contention of Mr. Sharif‑ud‑Din, the learned counsel for the Federation of Pakistan is that under Order VII rule 11 (d) no cause of action is made out in the plaint and the plaint should be rejected. The relevant rule reads as under :‑ " The plaint shall be rejected in the following circum stances (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". The contention of Mr. Sharif‑ud‑Din, the learned counsel for the defendants is that the suit is barred by the pro visions of section 226 of the Government of India Act as adapted by Pakistan Government, section 226 reads as under :‑ . "(1) Until otherwise provided by Act of the appro priate legislature, no High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country or the, law for the time being in force. (2) A Bill or amendment for making such provision as aforesaid shall not be introduced into or moved in the Federal or a Provincial Legislature without the pre vious sanction of the Governor‑General or, as the case may be, of the Governor ". The contention in short in view of the above provisions of the Constitution Act is that this Court has no juris diction to decide any issue regarding the revenue. In the present case the question is regarding the customs duty that had been realised by the authorities. There are two questions before me. In the first place can the customs duty be said to be revenue within the meaning of section 226 of the Constitution Act and in the second place the question for determination is if it is revenue and the customs authorities have illegally exercised their jurisdiction, can a suit lie or not ? A number of authorities have been cited by Mr. Sharif‑ud‑Din (A I R 1937 Mad. 536, A I R 1939 Cal. 763 and A I R 1940 Bom. 294), in support of his contention that the customs duty comes within the purview of revenue within the meaning of section 226 of the Government of India Act. These authorities, no doubt, establish the proposition, that customs duty is revenue. The earliest case in which the consideration of sec tion 226 of the Government of India Act came before the Federal Court of India was in 1944. Their Lordships of the Federal Court in A I R 1944 F C 51 held that where a matter related to Government revenue even though the authorities may have illegally passed the order the same cannot be challenged in Court of law in view of section 226 on the original side of the High Court. That case has been followed in a number of authorities. It is not necessary to go into details suffice it to say that this question has been con sidered in A I R 1946 F C 16, A I R 1950 Bom. 33 and A I R 1950 East Pb.

210. In all these cases section 226 of the Constitution Act was considered and the various High Courts came to the conclusion that where a question has arisen in any matter concerning the Government revenue the same could not be taken on the original side of the High Court. I, therefore, for the reasons set forth above reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 Civil P. C. with costs to the defendant. A. H. Plaint rejected.