' Marriage between the parties took place in the year 1988. It did not prove successful for a long time as a result whereof, the petitioner had to file a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Chunian on 6-1-1992. She also filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,24,600. It was contested by the respondent who also raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chunian on the ground that she was not at all resident of Chak No,33. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court including as to whether he had any territorial jurisdiction in the matter. After receiving the evidence which the parties wanted to adduce and on consideration of the same, he decreed the suit filed by the petitioner vide order, dated 7-2-1996. An appeal was filed by the respondent thereagainst. The learned Additional District Judge, Pattoki upheld the finding on other issues but reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue of territorial jurisdiction and taking the view that the suit is to be instituted where the cause of action wholly or partially accrued or the property is situated or where the defendant resides, he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge through this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court had rightly decided issue No,1-A that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter whereas the learned lower appellate Court had gone wrong in reversing the same. It is contended that Chunian/Pattoki are part of Kasar District, which aspect has been totally ignored by the learned lower appellate Court. It is further contended that the suit for dissolution of marriage was heard and decided by the Court at Chunian wherein such an objection was also raised but found against the respondent, and the said judgment was not challenged by him any further.
4. In so far as the finding on the other issues as to the entitlement of the petitioner to the articles of dowry are concerned, the two Courts below have concurrently found so in favour of the petitioner.
The learned lower appellate Court has only reversed the finding on issue No,1-A whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. In coming to the conclusion that the Court at Chunian/Pattoki had jurisdiction in the matter, the learned trial Court noted" the plaintiff has produced Exh.P/4, copy of the judgment in suit for dissolution of marriage and Exh.P/5 decree sheet thereof, and both these documents revealed that the plaintiff is residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and with that address, her suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed in her favour.
These two documents stood unrebutted on record. In these circumstances it is held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit", The learned lower Appellate Court, however, by applying section 16, C.P.C. Took a different view of the matter that the defendant was resident of Tehsil Kasur as also the property in dispute was detained there by him, therefore, the cause of action had also arisen there.
5. The local limits of the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge posted in a District extends within the entire District in the absence of any direction to the contrary given by the High Court. This is how section 10 of Civil Courts A Ordinance, 1962 defines the local limits of jurisdiction. Section 15 of the Ordinance empowers the District Judge concerned to distribute the business among such Courts by a written order. The ambit and inter-action of sections 10 and 15 of the Ordinance came up for consideration in Sharaf Faridi and 2 others v. M.A. Shahani and 16 others reported as PLD 1975 Kar.
59 and it was observed by late Tu fail Ali A. Rehman, C.J. (as he then was) that "I cannot, however, agree that the Court of the Vth Civil Judge did not have territorial jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that, that Court normally deals with cases arising in the limits of certain police stations as I have stated but this, in my view, is matter of distribution of business among the various Civil Judges in Karachi rather than a question of territorial jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judges is governed by the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, Ordinance II of 1962". After reproducing section 10 of the Ordinance and noting that Civil Judge was posted to Karachi by a Notification of the High Court, dated the 7th December, 1973 without any delimitation of his territorial jurisdiction, it was observed that "in the absence of any direction to the contrary, in such a case by virtue of subsection (2) of section 10, the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge are the local limits of the district which of course in this case is Karachi in parts of which admittedly the defendants/respondents reside and work for gain". With regard to the administrative order issued by the District Judge in pursuance of section 15 of the Ordinance, it was observed that "by no means can it be regarded as having specified the local limits of his jurisdiction and, indeed, the District Judge has no power to define jurisdiction at all. That power lies with this Court alone". In a later case Jamil Ahmad v. Sayed Muhammad Ali and another reported as PLD 1977 Kar. 901, the view taken by the Sindh High Court was that" under section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, when the High Court posts a Civil Judge to a district, the local limits of the district shall in the absence of any direction to the contrary be deemed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh was posted to Karachi on his transfer from Nawabshah under Notification of the High Court No,RHC/VI.M.46(i)(1975), dated 14-1-1975 to hold the post of VIII Senior Civil Judge. In the absence of any direction he had territorial jurisdiction throughout the District of Karachi. Section 15 of the aforesaid Ordinance empowers every District Judge by written order to direct that any civil business cognizable by his Court and the Courts of Civil Judges under his control shall be distributed among such Courts in such manner as he thinks fit, provided that such direction shall not empower any Court to exercise powers or deal with any business beyond the territorial limits of his jurisdiction." It was further observed that" the territorial jurisdiction conferred upon him can only be removed by a proper order and Notification by the High Court under section 10(1) of the Ordinance". Somewhat an identical point arose before this Court in Shahbaz Ahmad and 2 others v. Muhammad Shafi and 4 others reported in 1984 CLC 1275. It was a case where the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot had assumed jurisdiction with regard to immovable property situated in Daska Tehsil. His jurisdiction was challenged on the ground that the matter pertained to a property located within the jurisdiction of Daska Court. The relevant discussion is found in paragraphs Nos.11, 12 and 19 of the judgment which are reproduced as follows:-- "(11) In the light of the provisions of section 10 (supra), it becomes clear that in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, a Civil Judge posted in the district of Sialkot, can competently exercise jurisdiction within the limits of Sialkot district for the purposes of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction for the purposes of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, was evidently co-extensive with the local limits of the Sialkot district and in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, he could validly exercise jurisdiction even in regard to cases pertaining to immovable property located in Daska Tehsil of Sialkot District.
(12) In Civil Revision No,734 of 1968 (Fateh Muhammad v. Mst. Zainab and others) it was observed by this Court:- "But Narowal is a sub-division of the same district and normally a Civil Judge appointed in the district has jurisdiction over the entire district and it is only for sake of administrative convenience that particular category of suits are assigned to him. This does not take away the jurisdiction of the other Civil Judges in the district of Sialkot to deal with the matter in hand'.
(19) As already observed, ordinarily the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge posted in a district are co-extensive with the local limits of that district under section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. However, if there is any direction to the contrary by the High Court, then the local limits of his jurisdiction would be in accordance with the said direction. In the circumstances of the under consideration case through letter, dated 28-1-1967, the High Court simply intimated the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot that his suggestion was accepted to the effect that in future all cases relating to Daska Tehsil would be instituted at Daska only. This intimation does not amount to a direction to the contrary as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. This was just an order regarding distribution of work for the sake of administrative convenience amongst Civil Judges posted in a district who, otherwise exercised jurisdiction in the district of Sialkot. Such an order does not take away the jurisdiction of other Civil Judges of the district of. Sialkot and does not tantamount to a direction to the contrary contemplated by section 10(2) (ibid)."
6. The above judgement was challenged before the Supreme Court (1985 SCM R 604) and the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court was upheld by observing with reference to section 10 of the Ordinance that." a plain reading of this provision would show that in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, a Civil Judge posted in the District of Sialkot can competently exercise jurisdiction for the purposes of section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code within the entire limits of Sialkot district including naturally cases pertaining to immovable property located in Daska Tehsil of Sialkot".
7. What emerges from the perusal of above precedents is the recognition of a well-established principle of law that jurisdiction conferred and vesting in a Court cannot be taken away or curtailed except by law or in accordance with law. Nothing has come on record nor the learned lower appellate Court has made reference to any Notification or order of the delimitation of the jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Chunian in the matter, who otherwise possessed jurisdiction under section 10 of the Ordinance. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge thus, cannot be sustained on this point.
8. Another aspect which cannot be ignored in this case is the subject-matter of the suit which was regarding recovery of dowry articles. It concerned and arose out of "family litigation" and the Family Laws. Although at the relevant time suits for recovery of dowry did not find mention in the Schedule to section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, yet this omission was rectified by a later amendment, dated 26-4-1997 (Family Courts Amendment Act VII, 1997). It may be mentioned that under rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, a Court where the parties reside or last resided together has jurisdiction to try a suit. It was established in the present case that the petitioner resided within the local limits of the trial Judge. Thus, the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court in the matter could not be regarded as illegal or without jurisdiction.
9. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted. The judgment of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 8-7-1997 is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. No order as to costs.