' In this Constitutional petition legality of order, dated 21-1-1992 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the order, dated 20-2-1987 passed by the Chairman, Conciliation Court accepting the application of respondent No,4 and passing decree for an amount of Rs,16,395 against the petitioner has been called in question.
2. The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition shortly stated are that on 23-6-1986 respondent No,4 filed an application before the Chairman, Union Council Darman for recovery of an amount of Rs,16,395 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner got his land levelled from the respondent and an amount of Rs,16,395 was due as labour charges. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman on 15-1-1987. Respondent No,4 appointed two arbitrators from his side whereas the next date was fixed as 22-1-1987 calling upon the present petitioner to appoint two arbitrators from his side. There is no written consent of the petitioner available on the record and it was also not pleaded that he gave written consent for appointment of his two arbitrators but the order dated 22-1-1987 shows that the two persons were appointed by the petitioner as his arbitrators. The Conciliation Council was constituted by the Chairman and the case was fixed for 30-1-1987 for further proceedings. On this date though respondent No,4 alongwith his appointed arbitrators was present but neither the present petitioner nor any of his arbitrators appeared. The case was fixed for 9-2-1987 for recording the evidence of respondent who was directed to produce at least four witnesses in support of his case. It was also directed that fresh notice be issued to the petitioner for the said date. On 9-2-1987 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas evidence of respondent No,4 was recorded in the presence of the Chairman and his two nominated arbitrators.
The case was then fixed for passing order on 20-2-1987. On the said date an order was passed for granting ex parte decree to respondent No,4 for an amount of Rs,16,395 and the decision was described as a decision by majority. Against this order the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned District Judge, Narowal who entrusted it to the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh which was dismissed through order, dated 21-1-1992 as barred by time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the suit was for the recovery of an amount of Rs,16,395, therefore, it fell in clause (B) of Part II of the Schedule of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, as such, according to section 8(3) of the said Ordinance in case the decision was not unanimous the Conciliation Court could only issue a failure certificate. Section 10 of the said Ordinance provides that after the issuance of the said failure certificate the applicant/plaintiff could seek remedy before the ordinary Civil Court for recovery of the disputed amount. He also referred to Rule 13(1)(B) of Punjab Conciliation Courts Rules, 1982 according to which even if the respondent before the Conciliation Court in such a case had not appeared, the Conciliation Court could only issue a failure certificate. It was argued that in view of these provisions of law the order dated 20-2-1987 passed by the Conciliation Court suffered from total lack of jurisdiction and authority, as such was void ab initio. The said order apart from being void ab initio was passed in the absence of the petitioner, therefore, the revision petition could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation as the plea of limitation in such a case was not available.
4. The arguments 'lave considerable force. The suit filed by the respondent fell within the ambit of clause (B) of Part II of the Schedule of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, therefore, in case the decision was not unanimous or the respondent/petitioner had not appeared the only power vested with the Conciliation Court was to issue a certificate that the 4 conciliation had failed on which the respondent/applicant could approach the Civil Court for recovery of the disputed amount.' The order dated 20-2-1987 passed by the Conciliation Court for granting decree which was described as a majority decision could not have been passed for both the reasons i.e. the same was not unanimous decision and the petitioner had not appeared.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,4 submitted that this Court should decline relief to the petitioner in its discretion vested under Article 199 because his conduct was objectionable inasmuch as he after having appeared once before the Conciliation Court subsequently failed to appear and deliberately avoided to take part in the proceedings.
6. I am afraid in my opinion the argument is plainly unsound. The law provided that in case the respondent in such a case before the Conciliation Court did not appear no order could be passed against him to his prejudice, therefore, he could opt justifiably not to appear and if he did not, his le conduct could not be held to be objectionable which had the backing of law.
7. For the foregoing reasons order dated 21-1-1992 passed by the trial Court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and the order dated 20-2-1987 passed by the Conciliation Court are hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. In the result the application filed by the petitioner in which the said order dated 20-2-1987 was passed shall be deemed to be pending and the Conciliation Court is hereby directed to issue a failure certificate as contemplated by section 8(3) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, so that the petitioner may seek remedy before the Civil Court. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.