#TBS ^7, #TBE ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---By this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 18-4-2005 passed in a Suit filed by the respondents against the appellants for recovery, declaration, permanent .Injunction and damages amounting to rupees five million. The impugned order was passed on the office objection and learned Single Judge found that under section 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 the jurisdiction to try the cases vests in the District Court and plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the jurisdiction to try the suit of defamation has been specifically conferred on District Court but the term District Court does not entail the District Judge and that in exercising the original jurisdiction the High Court in Karachi acts as District Court and that Sindh Civil. Courts Ordinance, 1962 is not a Federal law and in support has relied upon the case of RIMPA SUNBEAM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR v. KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR (PLD 2006 Karachi 444)..
3. On the other hand counsel for the respondents has contended that Defamation Ordinance 2002 is a special law, which confers jurisdiction to try cases on District Court and that there is no provision in the Ordinance providing for filing -of suit on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction as done under the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel and have gone through the record.
5. The Defamation Ordinance 2002 was enacted and published in the Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary on 1-10-2002 as Ordinance LVI of 2002. By Defamation Amendment Act 2004, Act IX of 2004, sections 2, 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the Ordinance were amended. In section 2 clause (bb) was added containing the definition of term Court in the following words:-- "(bb) "Court" means the District Court."
Section 13 was substituted by new section 13 which reads as follows:-- "13. Trial of cases.---The District Court shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases under this Ordinance."
Section 15 was also substituted by new section 15 which reads as follows:-- "15, Appeal.---An appeal against the final decision and decree of the Court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days and the High Court shall decide the appeal within sixty days: ' Provided no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order of the Court."
6. It may be noted that for the purpose of trial of the cases under the Ordinance forum was provided that of District Judge which through amendment was substituted by District Court. There is no elaboration of term District Court in the Ordinance and it is obvious that Ordinance is a Federal law.
7. The case of Rimpa Sunbeam Cooperative Housing Society (supra) a three members bench of this Court on examining section 7 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 as amended by Sindh Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 has observed that jurisdiction of Sindh High Court to entertain suits is basically neither the ordinary nor the extraordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court but simply a District Court jurisdiction which was conferred and regulated by provincial statutes. The Karachi Courts Order, 1956 which was not a law made by the Parliament in exercising the power under the concurrent legislative list of Constitution of Pakistan and there was no conflict between Federal and Provincial law in the above context and therefore in accordance with section 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 the jurisdiction of Sindh High Court to try civil suits is confined to the matter where pecuniary value of subject matter exceeds Rs,30,00,000 and all other suits are liable to be tried by District Courts.
' It was also observed in the said judgment that where an Act of Provincial Legislature relating to a subject falling within the concurrent legislative list of Constitution was repugnant to an Act of Parliament whether enacted before or after the provincial law, the latter would invariably prevail.
8. The Defamation Ordinance, 2002 on its reading shows that it is a special law made by Federal Government on the subject of defamation creating special remedies and also provide for specific Court for trial of eases and appeal. It has conferred jurisdiction for trial of cases under the Ordinance IA on the District Court.
9. The Karachi Courts Order, 1956 so also the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 refer to establishment of the Court which, inter alia, provides for the Court of District Judge. The word District Court in itself is not used in both the laws. The Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance in section 7 as it reads today provides for original jurisdiction of the. Court of District Judge and further says that subject to this Ordinance or any law for the time being in force the original jurisdiction of Court of District Judge in civil suits and proceedings shall be without limit of the value thereof except in the Karachi Districts where the original jurisdiction in civil suits and proceedings of the value exceeding Rs,15 million shall be exercised by the High Court.
10. The Defamation Ordinance, 2002 specifically confers jurisdiction for trial of cases on District Court. For its application it is not dependant on the pecuniary limits prescribed by the Sindh Civil Court Ordinance especially when it is read in the context that it is a Federal law and will hold the field on its own without being subordinated or subjected to the latter Ordinance which only is Provincial law. This is also made clear by section 15 of the Ordinance which has conferred jurisdiction on the High Court to hear the appeal under the Ordinance. It does not require that appeal will be heard by more than one member bench of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, in such state of law could very well be heard by one member bench of High Court. It cannot be that a case heard and decided by one member bench of High Court and then appeal against, it is also heard by one member bench of High Court. This cannot be the situation that could have been visualized by framer of the Ordinance as in its mind the concept of District Court and High Court were altogether two different courts.
11. In such view of the matter, we do not think that jurisdiction with regard to District Court will have to be read as provided in Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 where the High Court has been conferred now the jurisdiction to hear the suits exceeding value of Rs,15 million as a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. The Ordinance has provided District Court as Court of trial of cases under it, it will be the District Court and no other Court including the High Court and it is the appeal against final decision and decree of that Court which will be heard by High Court. We, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order and same is therefore. Maintained and appeal is dismissed.