' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- Leave to appeal was granted to examine the effect and operation of section 24(2) of the (Punjab) Civil Courts Ordinance, A 1962 and section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Khalil-ur-Rahman, the appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the Town Committee Rabwah. He instituted a civil suit before the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chiniot against the Town Committee Rabwah through its Administrator. The Administrator at that time happened to be the Ilaqa Magistrate. Amongst the grounds was taken that the Assistant Commissioner Chiniot could not pass the impugned order. The suit was contested including on the ground of jurisdiction. It was decreed and the decree upheld in appeal. In Revision the High Court accepted the objection to the jurisdiction by observing as hereunder:-- "Practically nothing was asserted to take out the case from the purview of subsection (2) ibid or the dictum laid down in the precedent case. Since section 24 in its implication as also application was peremptory, noncompliance therewith would unmistakably make the judgment null and void. This result cannot be escaped especially because the facts of the present case were quite akin to those of the cited case so, however, if the controlling authority there was held not to be a member of the Local Body in order to claim exemption under section 24(3), on analogy the Administrator of the petitioner-Committee was also not a member thereof. He remained to be a civil servant and was acting as Administrator of the Committee in his official capacity so as to fall within the mischief of the governing clauses of the section."
' The High Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case to the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, for its disposal in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hamid Aslam Qureshi, has contended that as the specific objection which prevailed in the High Court with regard to the jurisdiction was not taken up in the trial Court, the same was not available for interfering with the judgments otherwise correctly recorded. For this submission reliance has been placed on section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Secondly it has been contended that the trial was held at the Headquarters of a Sub-Division and this amounted to substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. Thirdly the contention is that the party sued was the Town Committee and it was only incidentally that it was being sued through the Administrator who happened to be the Ilaqa Magistrate. Therefore, in fact there was no non-compliance with the requirement of section 24(2) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1%2.
4. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance provide as hereunder:-- "24. Civil Courts having unlimited jurisdiction regarding value to try suits against the State and its servants in their official capacity.--(1) No Civil Court not having jurisdiction in original suits without limit as regards value and no Court of the Small Causes shall receive, entertain or register any suit in which Pakistan or any of its Provinces or any Public Officer as defined in clause (17) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) in his official capacity is a party: ' Provided that in the Karachi District any such suit, if the value thereof does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, may be instituted in the Court of the District Judge, the Additional District Judge or a Civil Judge of the First Class, and in the High Court where the value of the suit exceeds twenty- five thousand rupees.
(2) In every such case the plaintiff shall be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge having jurisdicition in original suits without limit as regard value and such suit shall be instituted only in the Court of such Civil Judge and shall be heard at the headquarters of the district."
5. The Civil Courts Ordinance being :a special law will govern the case and displace the general provisions of Code of Civil Procedure with regard to territorial jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, section 21 of C.P.C. Will not be of avail in protecting the proceedings not held at the Headquarters.
6. The language of subsection (1) of section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance is per-emptory and prohibitive. The provisions of the Civil Courts Ordinance are manifestly based on public policy. It would, therefore, not be permissible to permit the parties by their act of omission or commission to avoid its observance or to defeat its object. On that ground also, section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be pressed into service.
7. At the time when the suit was instituted by the appellant, the Administrator through whom the Town Committee was sued, satisfied the definition of 'public officer', and on that account the provisions of section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance were attracted to the case and were rightly applied by the High Court.
8. We are informed that subsequent to the remand, the case has been decided afresh by the trial Court and also the appeal arising out of it.
9. For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.