Meer Aslam Jan, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 16,500/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 6.2.2001, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur on 5.7.2003.
Application for grant of permission to appear and defend the suit was allowed and written statement was submitted by Bashir Ahmad, present petitioner. Thereafter, parties were directed to produce their evidence upon the framed issues. On 18.10.2004, Bashir Ahmad, defendant filed an application under Order WI, Rule 10 of the CPC with prayer that the suit be returned to the plaintiff, as it was. exclusively triable by Conciliation Court under the Conciliation Court Ordinance, 1961.
Application was contested but was dismissed on 21.10.2004. Hence, this revision.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that according to Section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 2001, the present case was exclusively triable by Conciliation Courts, as it had fallen in Section 6 read with Part-I, Section B-Civil Cases of the Schedule attached to the aforesaid Ordinance. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate the case in hand and the plaint was to be returned for presentation before the competent Court.
3. On the also hand, respondent's learned counsel submits that petitioner had not raised the point of jurisdiction in the written statement with regard to the jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, therefore, application thereafter, under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was not competent. Learned counsel further submits that the objection to jurisdiction must have been raised by the petitioner at its initial stage, otherwise, it would be considered to have been waived.
Further states that the objection was to be dismissed, as it was not based on bona fides as the application was moved when petitioner's evidence was to be recorded and he had failed to produce evidence and his right of production of the evidence was closed. At this stage, this applicant was not competent. Moreover, the civil revision in which copies of all the statements of witnesses have not been appended is not properly constituted. So, it may be dismissed.
4. After considering the arguments of both the learned counsel and the perusal of record, I have noted that both the parties are residents of Bahawalpur according to the plaint and written statement, and the suit was also based upon a document in the shape of pronote and receipt. To assertion the applicability of Section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 in that situation, I would like to reproduce it in this judgment, so as to have an immediate look on it:- "6. Jurisdiction of Conciliation Courts, etc.-(1) Subject to the provision of sub-section (2), a Conciliation Court shall be constituted and shall have Arisdiction to try a case only when the parties- to the dispute ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of the same Union Council in which the offence has been committed or the cause of notice has arisen.
(2) Where one of the parties to be 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. From the above provision of law, it is apparent that sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1961 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the Conciliation Court has been conferred exclusively jurisdiction to try such a case, the requirement being of the parties to the dispute ordinarily residing within the jurisdiction of the same Union Council or the cause of action has arisen in the same Union Council, Wards of a City, Municipality or Cantonment. So, keeping in view this provision of Section 6 read with Section-B (Civil Cases) of Part-I Schedule attached to Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, the suit was triable exclusively by Conciliation Court. This being a special law having brought change by providing another Court of exclusive jurisdiction in the aforementioned cases in the presence of general law, the suit before the learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, not competent. To the extent of this law proposition, the learned counsel for respondent has not been able to controvert it. The objection that petition under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was filed after filing of written statement and after some time, after the closure of right to produce evidence, during the proceeding of the suit, cannot be considered to be a bar for raising such objection, because it is settled law that if a Court has got no jurisdiction, the objection having not been raised it cannot be granted jurisdiction or even the consent of the parties cannot confer upon it. The jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge having been taken away by Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 with regard to the extent of matters noted in the above law and of the instant case, jurisdiction could not be assumed by the learned Additional. District Judge. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.10.2004 passed by leaned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur cannot be upheld. It is also clarified that proceeding conducted without jurisdiction are nullity in the eye of law and cannot be held sacrosanct. It cannot be held legally justified on the score of raising it through delayed application. Therefore, by accepting this civil revision, the order dated 21.10.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for filing it before the competent Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.