' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Abdul Qayoom Tagar, the present applicant, has preferred this Civil Revision Application, challenging therein Judgment dated 18-1-2010, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana, in Civil Appeal No,109 of 2009, whereby the same was dismissed, in the terms that since the honourable District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), being Insurance Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between the appellant, (the applicant herein) and the respondents, the two impugned orders, passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, and IVth Civil Judge, Larkana, require no interference.
2. Concisely, the facts of the case for the purposes of decision in the present Civil Revision Application are that, the applicant filed suit for declaration, settlement of accounts and damages against the respondents herein on or about June, 2009, before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, in respect of the claim under the insurance policy availed of by the applicant from the respondents. After service the respondents filed their written statement, wherein by way of additional pleas, filing of the suit before such court was challenged on the ground of bar of jurisdiction. Such ground of jurisdiction having been raised by the respondents, the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, passed Order dated 30th September, 2009, in the terms that, "After hearing it is very much clear position that amount involved in present suit is less than Rs,50,000 and also State We Corporation Limited is not government department, hence in the interest of justice, the present plaint is hereby return(ed), under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. In order to present the same before competent court of law having jurisdiction."
3. Resultantly the applicant presented the plaint before the IVth Civil Judge, Larkana, which Court, in terms of its order dated 7-10-2009, returned the plaint even before its admission with an observation that State Life Insurance Corporation belongs to Federal Government, therefore, Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
4. It was under this background of the case that Civil Appeal No,109 of 2009 was preferred by the applicant, wherein, impugned Order dated 18-1-2010 was passed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned order dated 18-1-2010, passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana, and the order dated 3-9-2009, passed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, were erroneous and are the result of haste. It was also argued that since the respondent No,1 belong to the Federal Government, the jurisdiction to sue it was available with the Senior Civil Judge and that the Senior Civil Judge was competent to decide the suit that was filed before it as it had the ultimate jurisdiction. It was also argued that the Senior Civil Judge also had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit that was filed before it against the insurance company. It was also, urged that since the valuable rights of the applicant was involved and the same having not been redressed by the courts below be redressed by this court, exercising revisional jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents though called absent on the date of hearing (21-1-2011) of this Civil Revision Application, subsequently on 24-1-2011 sought permission to file written arguments and submitted the same on 25-1-2011. It was mentioned in the written arguments that the present Civil Revision Application is not maintainable inasmuch as that the Insurance Tribunal constituted in terms of section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate in respect of insurance matters and/or claims. To fortify this argument, Circular No,15 of 2006, dated 30th, October, 2006, issued by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was produced. It was also mentioned, on the basis of such Circular that the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), has been conferred powers of Insurance Tribunal in the entire Province of Sindh.
It was thus argued that the orders passed by the courts below, including the impugned Order dated 18-1-2010, of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana require no interference. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Civil Revision Application be dismissed.
7. I have heard arguments and perused the record and have also looked into the law involved.
8. Section 121(1) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and its proviso reads as under:--
121. Constitution of the Tribunal.---(1) The Federal Government shall constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals in consultation with the Commission and shall in respect of each Tribunal so constituted specify the territorial limits within which, or the class or classes of cases in respect of which each such Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance: ' Provided that the Federal Government may by notification in the official Gazette confer all or any of the powers of the Tribunal on any District or Additional District and Sessions Judge of an area where for any reason it may not be expedient to constitute a separate Tribunal, and in doing so the Federal Government shall also specify the composition and pecuniary and territorial limits of such. a Tribunal."
9. From the above reproduced section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, it becomes clear that it is mandatory for the Federal Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals in consultation with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and to specify its territorial limitations. It also becomes clear that subsection (2) of section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, provides for composition of the Tribunal. The provisions of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, would further show that section 122 lays down the powers and section 123 thereof provides for the procedure of the Tribunal, whereas section 124 speaks about the remedy of an appeal against the decisions of the Tribunal to this court. Section 122(3) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, provides that no court other than a Tribunal shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Tribunal extends under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.
10. At this stage, the relevant portion of Circular No,15 of 2006, whereby Insurance Tribunals had been constituted may be reproduced for ready reference, which reads as under:-- "SECP is pleased to inform that in accordance with section 121(2) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000, the Federal Government, in consultation with the Chief Justices of Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court, Peshawar High Court and Balochistan High Court has conferred powers of Insurance Tribunals in each Province on the District and Sessions Judges specified in column (2) of the table below to exercise territorial jurisdiction specified in column (3) thereof: S. No. Name of Sessions Court Territorial Limits
1. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore.Whole Province of Punjab.
2. District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central)Whole Province of Sindh
3. District and Sessions Judge, PeshawarWhole Province of N.-W.F.P.
4. District and Sessions Judge, QuettaWhole Province of Balochistan
11. Looking at the above Notification, issued under section 121(1) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, it becomes clear that it is the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), which has been constituted as an Insurance B Tribunal by the Federal Government and therefore, it is such an Insurance Tribunal which is to entertain and decide the cases emanating from insurance policies and/or cases regarding insurance claims. Section 122(3) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000, expressly bars the jurisdiction of the courts, including civil courts other than an Insurance Tribunal in the matters of claims under the insurance policy.
12. Gauging the case on the tough-stone of the above law, it would become clear that the bar was already operative when the suit was filed by the applicant on or about June, 2009 before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge and then the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Larkana, correctly refused to entertain the suit and/or the plaint of the C applicant. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that none of the courts below exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in excess of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. On the contrary, it would appear that the courts below refrained from exercising jurisdiction which did not vest with them by law. It is well settled by now that the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Are applicable only in those cases which involve illegal assumption, non-exercise or the irregular exercise of the jurisdiction and would not be available against conclusions of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the court.
13. Since in the present case there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the courts below, the applicant was not competent to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as provided under section 115, C.P.C. Before this court.
14. Record of the case would show that in response to applicant's legal notice dated 5-5-2009, concerning his insurance policy No,50250043-6, the same was responded by the respondents on 19-5-2009, (incorrectly mentioned as 19-5-2008), whereby the claim of the applicant, it seems was disputed and/or denied for the first time. It was after this denial of the respondent No, 1, it seems that the suit for declaration, settlement of account and damages was filed in or about June, 2009 before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana.
15. Article 86 of .The Limitation Act provides a limitation period of three years from the date of the occurrence causing the loss. In the present case it is yet to be decided by the competent court and/or the Tribunal as to which is the actual date of the occurrence whereby the loss had been caused to the insured, in the present case the applicant.
16. Section 14 of the Limitation Act speaks about exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction and that the time spent in such court shall be excluded where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or for any other cause of the like nature was unable to entertain it.
17. Since this court is to exercise revisional jurisdiction only to the extent of the impugned Order dated 18-1-2010 would not go into the merits of the case and jeopardize the interest of the parties and leave them to pursue their respective remedies before the courts competent to entertain the same.
18. As a result above Civil Revision Application is found to be meritless and therefore it is dismissed however with no order as to costs.