Order dated 12-11-1983 of the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby, he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, against order dated 13-1-1983 of the Chairman, Union Council No,212; Faisalabad, has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. An application alleging non-payment of Rs,1,400 was sent to Chairman, Union Council No,212, Chak No,38, Faisalabad at the instance of respondent No,3 by his brother, who was serving in Pakistan Army. The petitioner entered appearance before him. During the course of proceedings it was agreed by the parties that the matter will be decided on oath of any of the persons nominated with the consent of the parties, namely, Ali Nawaz, Imam Din, Wajid Ali Khan and Fazal Elahi. This oath was to be taken in the mosque on Holy Qur'an in the presence of the parties. It was agreed that if the petitioner was unable to comply with the same he would pay Rs,1,420 to the present respondent No,3. This undertaking was not honoured by the petitioner, as a result whereof, he was found liable to pay Rs,1,420 to respondent No,3. A revision was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 12-11-1983. Hence this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no proper constitution of the Conciliation Court in accordance with law; that the order of the Conciliation Court is beyond its pecuniary limits; and that respondent No,3 did not appear personally before the Conciliation Court.
It is further contended that a letter written by Wajid Ali to the Chairman, Union Council has not been taken into consideration while deciding the matter. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel that the order of the Conciliation Court is without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 contends that none of the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any merit for the simple reason' that the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No,2, participated in the proceedings without any objection and when the order went against him he turned round and challenged the same. It is contended by him that as the petitioner had agreed for decision on oath which he failed to honour, he is not entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction.
5. Undisputedly, the petitioner appeared before respondent No,2, took part in the proceedings and suggested a course of action to be followed by him for decision of the case. This was a voluntary act on the part of The petitioner, from Which, he cannot resile. No objection was raised by him as to the competency of respondent No,2, be it regarding the pecuniary limit of his jurisdiction or its proper constitution. In Abdul Wahab and others v. Habib Ali and others PLD 1969 Lah. 365, it was held that a party asking the Court to adopt a particular mode for decision of a case, cannot be allowed to resile later on. In Muhammad Sharif and another v. District Judge, Sahiwal and others PLD 1981 SC 571, it was held that having selected a course of action and having led the Court to adopt a certain procedure, the party on account of his conduct could not seek relief from the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Similar view was taken in Haji Muhammad Asghar v. Malik Shah Muhammad Awan and another PLD 1986 SC 542. It was held that a party who suggests a course of procedure to be followed by a Tribunal for decision in the matter, cannot later on turn round and challenge the authority or jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the matter. In Muhammad Hussain Jaffari v. Mst. Maryam Bibi and 2 others 1985 CLC 451 the proceedings of Conciliation Court were found suffering from want of jurisdiction. However, the order impugned was not interfered with in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. In the present case, the petitioner had chosen to participate in the proceedings before respondent No,2 without any objection. He took a chance for d favourable order. He is estopped to raise any such question now, when it has gone against him. In matters arising under Article 199 of the Constitution it is the settled law that the conduct of a person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court is of a vital significance and importance. It is not that all orders challenged before this Court in writ jurisdiction ought to be interfered with. The Court can decline the relief, even though, order may be termed as one without jurisdiction as held in Muhammad Hussain Jaffari's case (supra).
7. The contention of the learned counsel that letter written by Wajid Ali Khan has not been adverted to by respondent No,1, has no substance. The said letter has been duly taken note of by the learned District Judge. The authenticity of such a letter was found not beyond doubt. Concurrent findings of the two Courts cannot be interfered with the aid of such a piece of evidence which is disputed by the other side. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.