MASJID BILAL Through Ali Muhammad vs WALI MUHAMMAD And Other

ORDER

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- To decide this F.A.O. Reference to the pleaded facts is not necessary.

Suffice it to say that on 4-11-1989 the appellant filed a suit against the respondents as well as the Province of Punjab. The suit was instituted in the Court of a learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal and was entrusted to a learned Civil Judge at Sahiwal. Vide order; dated 23-5-1991 the said learned Court deleted the Province of Punjab from the array of defendants. Notwithstanding the fact that respondents Nos.21 and 22 i.e. Tehsildar Chichawatni and Patwari Halga were parties, the learned District Judge, Sahiwal by means of an administrative order transferred the case to Chichawatni.

Vide judgment and decree, dated 27-10-1998 a learned Civil Judge, 1st Crass at Tehsil Chichawatni decreed the suit. Some of the private respondents filed a first appeal against the said judgment and decree. It was heard by a learned Additional District Judge at Chichawatni, who found that since the said public servants were parties to the case, it could not have been heard at the Tehsil Headquarter. The matter was accordingly referred to the learned District Judge, Sahiwal for entrustment of the suit to a competent Civil Judge at Sahiwal. This was done vide judgment and decree 19-3-2003.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that his client could not be made to suffer for an act of Court inasmuch as the suit was in fact filed at the District Headquarter but was transferred to Chichawatni by the learned District Judge. He further contends that no objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge at the Tehsil Headquarter and as such the learned Additional District Judge could not have set aside the judgment and decree on the said ground. It is further complained that the matter is pending since last about 20 years.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records. There is no denial that the matter is governed by section 24 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. This being so, there was an express bar in law against trial of the suit to which public officers are parties at a place other than Headquarter of the District.

This provision of law came to be interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khalil-ur-Rehman's v. Town Committee Rabwah through Chairman PLD 1990 SC 792 and it was observed that the said Ordinance being a special law will govern the case and displace the general provisions of Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and as such section 21, C.P.C. Would not be available in protecting the proceedings not held at the Headquarter.

This being so, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge. It is true that an act of the Court should not cause prejudice to any of the parties but it is equally true that Courts of this country are governed in the matter of jurisdiction vesting in them by law and even a consent of the parties or for that matter a wrong order of Court would not confer jurisdiction which otherwise is not vesting in a Court by law.

4. So far as the said complaint of the learned counsel is concerned, a copy of this Court be remitted to the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, for onward transmission to the learned Civil Judge, who is seized of the suit, who shall proceed to decide the case after reading the evidence of the parties already recorded and after hearing the parties preferably within 6 months of the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.