MUHAMMADYAQOOB Versus CHAIRMAN, CONCILIATION COURT

Azam Bashir respondent No.2 filed a suit before respondent No.l against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.20,000. He claimed that on the promise that hand of petitioner No.3 would be given to him in marriage, the petitioners received from him Rs.8,000 in cash, golden ornaments and some clothes etc. but subsequently they resiled. Respondent No.l or for that matter, the Conciliation Court passed an ex parte order, dated 19‑6‑1986 awarding Rs.20,000 to the respondent No.2 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the file maintained by the respondent No.l. It indicates that notice sent to the petitioners for 19‑6‑1986 by registered post, was presented to petitioner No.4, whose name appears on the envelope, by the postman on 20‑6‑1986 and as per report of the latter, the petitioner refused to accept it. As already stated, the ex parte order is dated 19‑6‑1986. It is obvious, that the result of the service was not before the Conciliation Court when respondent No.l chose to proceed ex parte against the petitioners. Furthermore, the case falls under Section B‑Civil Cases' of Part 11 of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 and in view of clause (1‑b) of section 3 of the Ordinance, the case could be heard by the Conciliation Court only if all the parties to the suit agreed to it. In this respect the consent of the petitioners is obviously missing as they did not appear before the Conciliation Court. In these circumstances under Rule 8(2) of the Punjab Conciliation Courts Rules, 1982 respondent No .l was bound to issue a certificate to the effect that the conciliation had failed. Looking from any angle, the Conciliation Court lacked

H.B.T./M-717/L Petition accepted.