1991 M L D 797
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 5 others–Respondents
Writ Petition No.1885 of 1990, heard on 28th November, 1990.
(a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961)–
—-Sched., Part I, Section B, item No.3—Suit for recovery of damages to crops–Forum for trial of-such
suit—Where suit related to damages to crops as a result of act of defendants demolishing water-course,
such suit would fall under category of suits mentioned at No.3, Section B, Part I (Schedule) of
Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 and not under category of suits mentioned at No.1, Section B of
the said Schedule—Such suit was exclusively triable, by Conciliation Court and not by Civil Court.
(b) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961)–
—-Sched., Part 1, Section B, item No.3–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Suit for recovery of
damages to crops—Such suit being exclusively triable by Conciliation Court was not triable by Civil
Court—Appellate Court’s judgment against setting aside decree of Conciliation Court on the ground that
the claim not being based on written contract was beyond the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court, was
declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Appellate Court having not
decided revision on merits, case was remanded to it for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
Sh. Ziauddin Ahmad Qamar for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th November, 1990.
Through this Constitutional Petition, Allah Bakhsh, petitioner, seeks declaration to the effect that the
judgment/decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, respondent No.3, is illegal,
without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition, briefly, are that the petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of
Rs.5,000/- as compensation/damages to his crops before the Chairman, Union Council, Shadoo Khan,
Tehsil and District Layyah, against Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh, respondents Nos.1 and 2.
The suit was decreed ex parte on 15-6-1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad
Bakhsh, respondents, filed a revision, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge,
Layyah on 15-7-1990, on the ground that since the claim of the applicant was not based on any written
contract, therefore, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court to try the same. Hence this
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the suit filed by the petitioner falls in section
B, Part I of the Schedule of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1965, therefore, the same could only be
referred to Conciliation under Conciliation of Courts Ordinance, 1961, and Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to try it and that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge is totally against the
facts and law. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the arguments
addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the
petitioner. I find that the suit of the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.5,000 as damages to his crops as a
result of the act of the respondents/defendants demolishing the water-course falls under the category of
suit mentioned at No.3 of Section B of Part I of the Schedule and not under the category of suit
mentioned at No.1 of Section B of the Schedule and, as such, the same was exclusively triable by the
Conciliation Court and not by the Civil Court. The relevant provisions of law may be re-produced
“S.3.–Cases referable to Conciliation–(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in the 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
Section B–Civil cases.
(1) “Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents.
(2) Suit for the recovery of movable property, or for the value thereof.
(3) Suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging movable property.”
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the petition is accepted and the judgment/decree passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, respondent No.3, is declared to be illegal, without lawful
authority and of no legal effect. Since the learned Additional District Judge has not decided the revision
on merits, so the case is remanded to him for fresh decision of the revision petition on merits in
accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs.