' ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.---With consensus of learned counsel for the parties this case is admitted to regular hearing and is being treated as a pacca case.
2. Through this appeal appellant assails order dated 25-11-2008 of the learned Additional District Judge Karor, District Layyah whereby after observing that suit is triable by Conciliation Court plaint of the suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Was returned to the appellant for its presentation to the competent Court.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case that appellant filed a suit for recovery Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac only) on basis of a pro note and receipt dated 9-4-2007. After hearing arguments on the question of jurisdiction learned trial Court passed the impugned order and returned plaint of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in law in returning plaint to the appellant. Adds that value of the suit was Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac only) and the same could not be referred to the Conciliation Court without consent of the parties thereto.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other side, stood behind the impugned order and supported the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
7. For resolution of the controversy section 3 subsection (1) clause (b), of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1961, Part-I section B and Part-II section B of the Schedule to Ordinance are the relevant provisions which are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:-- "Section 3 Cases referable to conciliation:- (1)..... a. b. Any of the cases falling under Part-II of the. Schedule may be so referred if all the parties thereto ' agree to such a reference."
"Section B (Part-II of the Schedule Civil Cases)
' All civil cases (excepting those mentioned in section B of Part I of this Schedule), in which the value of the claim does not exceed one lac rupees."
'Section B (Part-I of the Schedule Civil Cases)
12.3.Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents.Suit for recovery of movable property, or for the value thereof.Suit for compensation wrongfully for taking or damaging movable property.In the case of Union Councils, when the amount claimed, or the price of the movable property, does not exceed twenty thousand rupees, and in the case of Town Committee, Municipal Committees, Municipal Corporations and Cantonment Board when the amount claimed or the price of movable property does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.
' The above survey of provisions of the Ordinance, manifests that where the amount claimed is above Rs, 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) and does not exceed Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac only) irrespective of the form of Local Government the case falls under section B of Schedule II and in view of conditions couched in section 3(1)(b) of the Ordinance, following pre-requisites must co- exist for referring the matter to the Conciliation Court:--
(i) Residence of parties in the vicinity as enunciated in section 6 of the Ordinance;
(ii) Consensus of parties for s reference; and
(iii) Claim not exceeding Rs,100, (rupees one lac only) in value.
' In the present appeal value of the subject-matter exceeds Rs,50,000 and without dilating upon other requirements for reference, consent of the appellant is undisputedly, lacking therefore, the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of section 3(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
8. For the foregoing this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 25-11-2008 is set aside with the result that suit filed by the appellant would be deemed pending before the learned Additional District Judge, who will proceed further in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge Karor, on 1-7-2009.