' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Mst. Sharifan Begum, against the petitioner, Khuda Bakhsh, for recovery of Rs,12,600, on the basis of a contract of lease in respect of a house. It was alleged by her that the petitioner owed the said amount to her as arrears of rent.
Her suit was decreed by a Civil Judge. The petitioner, therefore, went in appeal but without success.
Hence this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court constituted under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance. In this connection, reliance was placed on section 3 of the said Ordinance.
3. Since the claim of respondent was based on a contract of lease and the amount claimed was Rs,12,600, i.e, more than Rs,1,000 his suit did not fall under item 1 of section B, Civil Cases of Part I of the Schedule attached to the said Ordinance. Instead, her suit was covered by Section B, Civil Cases of Part II of the said Schedule. According to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Ordinance, therefore, the respondent's case could be referred to a Conciliation Court if all the parties thereto had agreed to such a reference. There is nothing to show that any such agreement was reached in the instant case. If any agreement in this regard had been entered into, the respondent would not have gone before a Court of general jurisdiction or, on his having done so, the petitioner would have objected to the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge by pressing into service the aforementioned agreement but it was frankly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of trial of the suit no objection in respect of jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge was raised by the petitioner. This, according to him, was done by him before the learned appellate Court for the first time. Obviously, it was a belated attempt on his part to avoid the judgment and decree passed against him by the learned Civil Judge. Before the learned appellate Court too, the petitioner did not assert that there was any agreement to refer the dispute to the Conciliation Court. As explained above, the Conciliation Court could not hear the suit without the consent of the parties which has not been pleaded much less established in the instant case. In the circumstances, the provisions of the said Ordinance are of no avail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not say anything on the merits of the case. There is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount claimed by the respondent. In that verdict I find no fault justifying interference therewith in exercise of revisionat jurisdiction vested in this Court. Judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are, therefore, confirmed.
5. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is dismissed in limine.