' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) calls in question the order, dated 2-12-1992 passed by the Chairman Conciliation Court No,88 as also the revisional order, dated 23-10-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the decree passed by the Conciliation Court for the recovery of Rs,26,200 in favour of respondent No,1 was affirmed.
2. Some necessary facts are that respondent No,1 filed an application for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs,46,200 before the Conciliation Court Ward No,88, Lahore by asserting therein that he was tenant under the petitioners in a shop comprising the house situate Zulqarnain Street, Ichhra Lahore, and that the petitioners got vacated the said shop for they wanted to construct a new storey in the house aforenoted and for that purpose they wanted to collect construction material in the said shop. The respondent agreed to vacate the shop. It was also agreed between the parties that after the completion of upper storey the shop shall be restored to the respondent in its original condition. According to respondent No,1 insisted that a document may be drawn so as to incorporate therein the agreement afore-referred but the petitioners assured him to abide by the agreement resultantly respondent No,1 vacated the shop afore-referred and in doing so he suffered a loss for he had to break the furniture as also the decoration and fixtures therein. It was then submitted that the petitioners having completed the upper storey refused to accommodate the respondent, therefore, he had suffered a loss of business hence he claimed damages on three counts as follows:-
(i) Damage caused to the furniture as also fixtures Rs.25,000
(ii) Loss of business from March to July, 1992 at the rate of Rs.5,000 per mensumRs.20,000
(iii) The amount spent on storing the articles of the shop vacated by the respondent.Rs.1,200 Total Rs. 46,200 ' The amount afore-referred was claimed alongwith the prayer that the petitioners be asked to accommodate the respondent in the shop got vacated by them.
3. It appears that the petitioners opposed the abovesaid application on the ground that respondent No,1 was not a tenant of the shop in dispute and that they have no connection with him, whereafter they did not seem to have appeared in the case, resultantly the Conciliation Court passed ex parte decree in favour of the respondent on 2-12-1992. Since the decree was not prepared by the Conciliation Court, therefore, some time was taken for the preparation of the decree, which was ultimately prepared. Anyway the petitioners filed a time-barred revision petition against the abovesaid judgment and decree, which came up before respondent No,3, who proceeded to dismiss the same on the ground of limitation, which order has been assailed in the present Constitutional petition.
' No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, therefore, they, are proceeded against ex parte.
4. Section 3 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 confers jurisdiction on the Conciliation Court in regard to the following cases;-- "Section 3. Case referable to conciliation.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908):--
(a) all cases falling under Part-I of the Schedule shall, save as otherwise provided hereinafter, be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance, and no Civil or Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to try any such cases; and
(b) any of the cases falling under Part-II of the Schedule may be so referred if all the parties thereto agree to such reference.
(2) The following cases relating to matters falling under section B of Part-I of the Schedule or under section B of Part-II thereof shall be excluded from conciliation, namely:--
(a) cases in which the interest of a minor is involved;
(b) cases where provision for arbitration has been made in a contract between the parties;
(c) cases by or against the Central or a Provincial Government or Public Corporation or a Public Servant acting in the discharge of his duty;
(d) cases which according to the customary law of a community or referable to a community Panchayat.
[(2-A) Cases relating to matters falling under section A of Part-I and section A of Part-II of the Schedule, against any Government servant, shall be excluded from conciliation except where a certificate is granted by Government or an officer authorized by Government in that behalf to the effect that the Government servant had not acted in the discharge of his official duties].
[(3) Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, amended the schedule so as to--
(a) add thereto any class of cases relating to such disputes between private parties as are of a local nature and are capable of settlement by compromise;
(b) omit any entry therefrom or
(c) alter or modify any entry therein.]
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to cases relating to an offence specified in the Schedule if the accused had previously been convicted of a cognizable offence."
' The bare reading of the above section would show that jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court is conferred and created in regard to the civil matters as described in section B of Part-I of the Schedule as follows:--
(1) Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents.In the case of Union Councils, when the amount claimed or the price of movable property, does not exceed [one thousand] rupees; and [Town Committees, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committees, Metropolitan Corporations and Cantonment Boards] In the case of when the amount claimed, or the price of movable property, does not exceed [fifty] thousand rupees (as substituted vide Notification No. SOV(LG)-5- 5/1991, dated 29th October, 1991.(2) Suit for the recovery of movable property or for the value thereof
(3) Suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging movable property ' Needless to add that it has been further conferred and created in section of Part-H of the same Schedule as under:-- "All civil cases (excepting those mentioned in section of Part-I of this Schedule), in which the value of the claim does not exceed [one lac] rupees (as substituted vide Notification No,SOV(LG)-5- 5/1991, dated 29th October, 1991)."
The suit filed by the respondent is neither based on any contract nor any other document and the one mentioned at Serial No,3 of section B of Part-I of Schedule i,e, suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging movable property may not also be competent for a cursory glance at the plaint in the suit filed by the respondent would show that neither any movable property of the respondent was wrongfully taken or damaged by the petitioner rather on the contrary it was the case of the respondent that he had removed the furniture and fixture himself and had to suffer loss because of the same. This being a voluntary act on the part of the respondent no suit as such was at all competent before the Conciliation Court. As a matter of fact the Conciliation. Court assumed the jurisdiction and exercised it in the name of law, which did not permit it to exercise such a jurisdiction. Need it be stated here that Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) ordains that the Court shall have jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law. No such jurisdiction was vested with the Conciliation Court to entertain such a suit or to decree the same, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Conciliation Court is wholly without jurisdiction, void and nonexistent. Since no limitation runs against a void order, therefore, the learned revisional. Court also fell in error in determining the revision petition of the petitioners on the ground of limitation alone. As for the suit provided in section B of Part-II of the Schedule attached to the A Conciliation Courts Ordinance XLIV of 1961, suffice it to observe here that section 3 of the said Ordinance lays down that any of the cases falling under Part-II of the Schedule may be referred if all the parties thereto agree to such reference. In the instant case the petitioners/defendants never agreed to such a reference for they having filed written statement in the case thereby stating that respondent No,1 had no connection with them or the shop, absented themselves from the proceedings thereof, therefore, it can safely be inferred that they did not agree to any reference to the Conciliation Court. It is thus obvious that the suit as filed by respondent No,1 could not be tried by the Conciliation Court by treating the same to be a suit as described in section B of Part-II of the Schedule attached to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961.
5. In the circumstances aforenoted the order, dated 23-10-1995 passed by the 'learned revisional Court as also that of the Conciliation Court, dated 2-12-1992 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
6. In result this writ petition is accepted with costs throughout.