1994 PLP 57 (MLD)

Briefly the facts of the case are that the deceased respondent, on 11-6-1966, moved an application before Union Committee No.23, Faisalabad, against the appellant for the recovery of Rs.1,000, which the latter had allegedly borrowed from her. No document in support of this claim was filed. These proceedings were taken by her under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961.

2. On being summoned, the appellant denied the claim and this led to constitution of Arbitration Council comprising two members, nominated by the appellant, two by the opposite party, the fifth being the Chairman of the Union Committee in question. On 6-10-1966 it was proposed by the appellant that if one Mst. Anwar Begum took oath that she had not paid a sum of Rs.1,000 on behalf of the appellant to the respondent, the claim of the respondent be decreed. On 10-10-1966 Mst. Anwar Begum was summoned and she made a statement that she had not paid a sum of Rs.1,

000. Consequently, on 10-10-1966 a decree of a sum of Rs.1,000 was passed against the appellant. It may be mentioned at this stage that one of nominees of the appellant and so also the appellant did not sign the proceedings. All others did so.

3. The appellant, on 25-10-1966, filed a declaratory suit to the effect that the decree obtained by the responder! was a nullity. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 10-7-1967 and the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 25-6-1968. It is m the circumstances that the present R.SA. was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised question of jurisdiction. His precise contention is that the Conciliation Court, as constituted under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 had jurisdiction to enter into adjudication of a money claim provided the same was based on a contract, receipts or other documents. His precise submission is that admittedly there was no contract between the parties and it was a case, according to the civil suit, of advancement of a sum of Rs.1,000 by way of loan. In so far as the other requirement of section B of the Schedule attached to the Ordinance is concerned, suit could be filed only in case it was backed by receipts or other documents.

5. Admittedly, the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence before the Conciliation Court and, therefore, her claim should have been thrown out. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Zamiruddin Ahmad v. Havas Khan PLD 1969 SC 57 and Abdur Rehman v. Hamid Khan 1988 SCMR 1146 in support of his plea.

6. I have gone through these authorities and find that the contention of the learned counsel is well based. In so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, needless to say that it can be raised even at the stage of second appeal in civil matter before this Court.

7. Late Mst. Hajan Janat Bibi did not produce any document to support her case of advancement of the loan in question and, therefore, the Conciliation Court constituted under the Ordinance, seized of the matter, had no jurisdiction to proceed further and her claim should have been rejected outright. The two Courts below have, therefore, fallen in error of law in refusing to grant the decree prayed for by the appellant declaring the impugned decree of the Conciliation Court to be illegal and inoperative qua the rights of the appellant.

8. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the decree prayed for by the appellant, declaring the impugned decree of the Conciliation Court dated 10-10-1966 to be illegal and inoperative on the rights of the appellant is i granted. The judgments of both the Courts below are set aside.

9. Since none has appeared to contest this appeal, there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1222/L Appeal accepted.