' A suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner against Emirates Bank International Limited, 14-Egertan Road Branch, Lahore on 15-5-1995 before a Civil Court at Lahore. Later, an application under Order XI, Rule 14 of C.P.C. Was filed for a direction to the defendant to produce the original documents in the Court. A reply thereto was submitted by the respondent/ defendant in which an objection was raised that the suit itself was not maintainable and the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Making the said reply a basis that some misstatement had been made therein by the respondent, an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. Was filed by the petitioner. On 14-10-1996, the respondent submitted reply to the same again with an objection that the suit was not maintainable nor the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that the respondent had also made an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 of C.P.C. For the return/rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The said application was decided by the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore on 28-11-1996, who came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and ordered the return of the plaint. This order was not challenged any further by the petitioner and has not only attained the finality but it is also stated that the suit was thereafter filed before the Banking Court. Despite the abovesaid order, the proceedings continued on the application of section 476, Cr.P.C. Filed by the petitioner for some time although objection to the jurisdiction of the Court and the competency of the proceedings had been taken by the respondent, however, were finally dismissed on 7-11-1997. The said order has been challenged through this petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is not sustainable in law inasmuch as not only that the petition/complaint under section 476, Cr.P.C. Was competent, the Court had also jurisdiction in the matter despite the fact that it had no initial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
3, On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondent contends that as the suit itself was not maintainable before the Civil Court nor the Civil Court had the jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, no proceedings of whatsoever nature were competent under section 476. Cr.P.C. Particularly, when the plaint had been returned to the petitioner/plaintiff and the said order had not been challenged any further. It is further contended that even the propriety did not warrant any proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed by him on Ch. Feroze Din v. Dr. K.M. Munir and another 1970 SCM R 10, Abdul Rashid Khan v. Mst. Hassan Jan and 7 others 1999 Cr.LJ 1321 and Ghulam Shabbir and 5 others v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 97.
4. From the facts briefly mentioned above, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was challenged and objected by the respondent from the very initial stage which objection prevailed when the plaint was returned to the petitioner/plaintiff due to lack of jurisdiction in the matter on 28-11-1996. This order was not challenged by the petitioner any further rather it was accepted as statedly the suit was then filed before the Banking Court. In this view of the matter, the question arises as to whether when the proceedings before the Civil Court were incompetent and the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, section 476, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked in the matter. The answer to this question manifestly is in negative. In Sumat Prasad v. Emperor AIR 1942 All. 11 in the course of execution proceedings a receipt was filed and a statement was made that the decree in execution had been satisfied.
' That statement was found to be false and the receipt a forged document. A complaint was then filled under section 195, Cr.P.C. When an objection as to the competency of the same was raised but was rejected. The objection precisely was that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardhana had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings, before whom, the alleged statement had been made and the forged receipt bad been submitted. It was found that the proceedings before the Executing Court were null and void as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardhana had no jurisdiction in the matter and the execution proceedings were to start afresh in a proper Court. In this context it was held as follows:-- "If during the course of these proceedings, which were ultra vires and illegal, any offence under section 193 or section 471, Penal Code, was committed by the applicant, it cannot be said that it was committed in or in relation to or by a party to any judicial proceedings. This view is fully supported by 8 All 674. There a suit had been dismissed ex parte as against the defendant 'whose application for rehearing was granted and the suit reheard, in the course of which re-heat ing the plaintiff made a certain false statement and the Munsif ordered his prosecution under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that the proceedings of the learned Munsif were ultra vires and illegal inasmuch as under Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code the Munsif could not set aside the decree and grant a re-hearing and, therefore, the conviction for perjury could not be sustained.
It was observed there; ' The Munsif's proceedings, therefore, were ultra vires and illegal and, therefore, Babu Ram cannot be held to have committed perjury in the course of a judicial proceeding. It was not a proceeding in which evidence could be legally taken. This is the principle which was applied in the case in 1890 AWN 100 and also in 32 All.
30.
' It is, therefore, ordered that the application be allowed and the complaint made by the Sub- Divisional Officer be dismissed."
' In Narain Singh v. Emperor AIR (35) 1948 All. 287 the above ruling was considered and in view of the peculiar facts of the case a distinction was drawn in case where the order had been passed by the Court which had no jurisdiction in the matter and a case where the Court had jurisdiction in the matter but the order passed was illegal.
5. The principle deducible from the above said precedents is that where the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter at all, the proceedings taken by it, will be regarded as ultra vires, illegal, null and void and section 476, Cr.P.C. Would not be invokable. In the present case, the respondent had from the very initial stage been objecting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter which objection ultimately was upheld and the plaint was returned for lack of jurisdiction by the Court. There was no material before the Court thereafter. It was wholly an unwarranted exercise under section 476, Cr.P.C. Which finally ended in acquittal of the respondent through the impugned order although on different grounds.
' For the reasons, mentioned above, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.