1. By this judgment I intend to dispose of six revision applications in which same questions of law are involved. The facts relevant to this judgment are that the applicants filed suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, pleading therein substantially that during 1969 the respondent had unauthorizedly occupied an area out of C.S. No,99 R.S. No,38 Ward 'A' Tando Muhammad Khan, a property under the management and control of Augaf Department. He then constructed house and shop on the plot. Later on he agreed to pay the rent to Auqaf Department and had been paying the same. However, after some years he stopped paying the rent and claimed ownership over the plot on the basis of false and fabricated documents. He was, therefore, liable to ejectment.
2. The prayers in the suit were as under:--
(a) That this Honourable Court may please to deliver the vacant possession of suit property and the defendant No,1 be ejected through the process of this Court.
(b) That this Honourable Court may please to cancel the document executed or issued if any, possession of defendant No,1.
(c) That this Honourable Court may please to award mesne profit Rs,20,000 to the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendant No, 1 .
(d) Costs of the suit be borne by the defendants.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper be granted.
3. By order dated 30-9-1991, the plaint of the suit was returned to the applicants/plaintiffs for presenting the same before the Court having jurisdiction. It was held in the order that subject- matter of the suit was situated at Tando Muhammad Khan, therefore, Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan had jurisdiction over the matter. The applicants/plaintiffs challenged that order before District Judge, Hyderabad, through Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No,48 of 1991. The appeal was assigned to the 1st Additional District Judge, Hyderabad who dismissed it by judgment dated 28-4- 1992. Both of the decisions have been assailed through present revision application.
4. While arguing the application Mr. Shoukat Ali Jafferi, the learned advocate for the applicants contended that although the subject-matter of the suit is situate at Tando Muhammad Khan within the territorial jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan but since Province of Sindh and two Public Officers i.e, Sub-Registrar, Tando Muhammad Khan and Mukhtiarkar Tando Muhammad Khan are party to the suit that Court does not have jurisdiction in view of the bar imposed by section 24(1) and (2), Civil Courts Ordinance 1962. He argued that Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, being a special law will override the general provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. According to the learned advocate it is Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad who has jurisdiction over the suit. In support of his arguments Mr. Jafferi referred to decision of the Honourable apex Court in Khalil ur Rehman v. Town Committee, Rabwah (PLD 1990 SC 792).
5. Mr. Masood A. Noorani, the learned Additional A.-G. defended the impugned orders arguing that section 24, Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which does not have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Since Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction the bar is not applicable against his Court. For proper appreciation of contentions it will be beneficial to reproduce section 24(1) and (2) as applicable to Sindh after enforcement of Civil Courts Sindh (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1971. It reads as under:-- 24: --Civil Courts having unlimited jurisdiction regarding value to try suits against the State and its servants in their official capacity.---(1) No Civil Court not having jurisdiction in original suits without limit 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 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 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 Civil Judge and shall be heard at the headquarters of the District. A bare look at subsection (1) makes it clear that in the suits in which Pakistan or any of its Provinces or any public officer is party the jurisdiction of only that Civil Court is barred which does not have unlimited jurisdiction as regards value in the original suit. In other words the jurisdiction of Civil Court having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction is not barred in such suits.
6. Also section 2 speaks of institution of such suits in the Courts of Civil Judge having jurisdiction in original suits without limits as regards value.
7. Undisputedly the plot which is subject-matter of the suit is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan. It is also admitted position that Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan which had the jurisdiction over the suit and not the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. Thus the plaint of the suit was rightly .returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. for presenting the same before the Court having jurisdiction.
8. The last part of subsection (2) relates to the hearing of the suit at the Head Quarter of the District and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court at Tando Muhammad Khan. It is to be seen as to whether the requirement relating to the place of hearing is absolute or directory. Although the word 'shall' oftenly makes the requirement mandatory but it is not so in each and every case. Here the provision for enforcement of the requirement about proceeding of the suit at District Head Quarter is absent. Also the non-compliance will be neither prejudicial to any of the parties to the suit nor will it cause miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the requirement is directory and not mandatory and, as such, non-compliance thereof will not affect the validity of the proceedings at the place of sitting of Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan.
9. In the result of above the revision applications are dismissed being meritless.