Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3164 of 1985, heard on 5th November, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 7(2)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 110‑‑Recovery of arrears of rent and water charges‑‑Limitation‑‑Jurisdiction of conciliation Courts‑‑Conciliation Court passed ex parte decree in favour of respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and water charges for 71 months‑‑Law had to be applied correctly even in ex parte proceedings‑ Recovery through conciliation Court being not exempted from provisions of Limitation Act, 1908‑‑Conciliation Court, held, acted illegally in decreeing respondent's claim which was hopelessly barred by time.

Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner.

Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1985.

Malik Din respondent moved an application, dated 4‑2‑1984 against the petitioner, before the Chairman, Conciliation Court Ward No.18, Lahore, for recovery of rent and water charges, w.e.f. August, 1978. Ex parte proceedings were conducted against the petitioner and the Chairman passed a decree, dated 13‑6‑1984 in favour of the respondent for Rs.5,325 as arrears of rent and Rs.1,349 as water charges, for a period of 71 months. The petitioner went in appeal but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same as barred by time. His order in this respect, is, dated 30‑10‑1984. The petitioner has now come to this Court for removal of the orders passed by the authorities below, through judicial review.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, is, that even if he could be proceeded against ex parte, the decree passed against him covers time‑barred debt. No jurisdiction vested in the conciliation Court to allow a claim which was patently barred by time.

3. The objection is well‑founded. The recovery through conciliation Court is not exempted from the provisions of the Limitation Act. It ‑can hardly be doubted that the respondent's demand beyond the period of three years from the date of his application, was barred by time. Obviously the conciliation Court acted illegally in decreeing the respondent's claim which was hopelessly barred by time. Needless to mention that even in ex parte proceedings law had to be applied correctly. The learned Additional District Judge did not examine the case on merits and as observed above he declined to intervene on the sole ground that the appeal was barred by time.

4. This writ petition is accepted with costs. The case shall have to be sent back for its fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly it is directed that the respondents application shall be treated as pending and decided afresh according to law. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise any plea in defence as permitted by law. The parties are directed to appear before the Chairman, conciliation Court on 27‑11‑1985. The record shall be sent back to the conciliation Court forthwith.

H . B . T . Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.