1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of decree of learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.579 of 1993 dated 17-11-2003 and both dated 17-11-2003 whereby suit for the plaintiff filed under Fatal Accident was decreed in the sum of Rs.6,73,600 against defendant Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally along with mark up 14%.
2. ' Suit was instituted by the parents of the deceased Khalid Zafar who died as a result of traffic accident on 3-7-1993. The deceased at the time of accident was 30 years old, he was science graduate and also obtained Masters Degree in International Relation from the University of Karachi.
3. Additional qualification including course of computer science. The deceased stated to be unemployed at that time, was looking to proceed abroad. In the meantime to secure some income he was running Yellow Cab bearing No.PL-6755 when he met with an accident with a Truck bearing No.062605 (SR 123), which was being driven negligently and in careless manner near Shahrah-e- Faisal Terminal No.1 and hit yellow cab. After the yellow cab was hit it was dragged upto about 10 feet, injuries inflicted upon the deceased were followed by his death. In support of the claim initially suit was filed for the sum of Rs.12,50,000. The facts were proved by documentary evidence to confirm the accident. The fact of death due to accident by relevant report. His educational qualification and registration of taxi and driving licence. The suit was not defended by the appellant ex parte proceedings were taken up and after taking into consideration the documents produced and the statement of the mother of the deceased namely Mst. Hassan Jehan was taken.
4. The same was decreed.
5. ' Contention of Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui learned counsel for appellants is that decree was passed on a suit for Rs.12,50,000 which was less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of learned trial Court. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the suit is without sufficient evidence, relevant facts were not proved to support a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is not disputed that at the time of incident the matter was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and the suit was instituted in the competent Court. Subsequently enhancement in the jurisdiction cannot be stated to have taken away the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court. ##TE#The question of pecuniary jurisdiction came under examination before Bench of this Court in Re: Office Reference in respect of Civil Courts (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 (Sind Ordinance XIII of 1970 (PLD 1981 Karachi 210).
6. It has been held that the original jurisdiction of the High Court and the Lower Courts are concurrent for this purpose. The question has also been examined along with the case-law developed after the Office Reference (Supra) in the recent case of Rimpa Ltd. v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (2004 CLC 1797). It has been pointed out that the point has again been agitated now before a Full Bench of this Court once again. In view of the above discussion the question of concurrent jurisdiction having been settled the contention has no merits.
7. The next contention regarding sufficiency of material evidence does not find support from the record of the case. Relevant facts are proved by documentary evidence. The F.I.R. Reporting the accident, the medical certificate confirming the cause of death and the educational degree obtained from the University of Karachi are all available on record and there are sufficient material to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as covered in the affidavit in ex parte proof so stated in th impugned judgment. Under the circumstances contentions of the learned counsel have no force, no finding contrary to record has been brought to our notice and no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed in. Limine .##TE#