' According to the averments of writ petition a suit filed against District Council was entrusted to Mr. Naeem Mohy-ud-Din, Civil Judge II-Class, Sargodha. The learned Civil Judge appointed Mr. Muhammad Hussain Balouch, Advocate, as Local Commission vide order, dated 8-7-1998 to inspect the disputed site and determine about the existence of road. And the material lying at the spot. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order filed Civil Revision before District Judge, Sargodha on the ground that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 1-8-1998.
Hence this writ petition.
2. Mr. Akhtar Masood Khan, Advocate, for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Naseem Sabir Additional Advocate-General have entered appearance at limine stage. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the record. This case is, therefore, being decided as a notice case.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that under section 24 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, Civil Judge 1st Class, can adjudicate upon the matter where it has been filed by or against a public servant. The learned Civil Judge-II Class has no jurisdiction to try the suit and order, dated 8-7-1998 is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that Additional District Judge did not advert to the point of jurisdiction and decided the case on wrong assumptions. The learned counsel for petitioner in support of his arguments has relied upon Province of Punjab and another v. Abdul Majid (NLR 1993 Service 56) and Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Town Committee, Rabwah (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 792).
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 has failed to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the point of jurisdiction.
5. Subsections (1) and (2) of section .24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance provide as under:-- "24. Civil Courts having unlimited jurisdiction regarding value to to suits against the state and its servants in their official capacity.--(1) No Civil Court not having jurisdiction in original suits without ilimit 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 jurisdiction 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 headquarter of the district."
' In PLD 1990 Supreme Court 792 supra it has been held as follows:-- #TBS PLC (Service) #TBE "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 Headquarter."
' It was further held that:-- "The language of subsection (1) of section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance is pre-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 this ground also, section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be pressed into service."
5-A. At the time when the present suit was instituted by the petitioner District Council was headed by Deputy Commissioner as its Administrator, who is a public officer and on account of bar contained under section 24 of Civil Courts Ordinance the case was wrongly entrusted to Civil Judge II Class. Both the Courts below have illegally ignored the bar contained under section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance.
6. In view of the above, the impugned orders, dated 8-7-1998 and 1-8-1998 are declared to have been passed without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The same are set aside. Copy of this order be sent to District Judge, Sargodha, who shall entrust the case to the Court of competent jurisdiction, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with the law.