Updated: Friday January 17, 2014/AlJumaa
Rabi' Awwal 16, 1435/Sukravara
Pausa 27, 1935, at 04:43:13 PM
The Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961
(XLIV OF 1961)
28th November 1961
An Ordinance
to make provision
for the establishment of Conciliation Courts.
Preamble:
Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the establishment of Conciliation
Courts to enable people to settle certain disputes through conciliation, and
for matters connected therewith;
Now, therefore,
in pursuance of the Proclamation of the seventh day of October, 1958, and in
exercise of all posers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to
make and promulgate the following Ordinance:---
1. Short title and commencement: 1) This Ordinance may be called The Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961.
2) It extends
to the whole of
3) It shall
come into force on such date [1] as the Federal Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf.
Legal Amendment
1. The First Day of March, 1962 which was announced by Gazette
of Pakistan 1962 e.x.t.
2. Definitions: In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or
context:---
a) "Cognizable
offence" means a cognizable offence as defined in Section 4 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act of V of 1898);
b) "
c) "Controlling
Authority" means [an officer appointed by |Government to be the
Controlling Authority for the purpose of this Ordinance;]1
d) "decree"
means a decree as defined in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Act V of 1908);
e) "District
Judge" shall include an Additional District Judge, a subordinate Judge
and a Civil Judge;
f) "Government"
in relation to any local area in Province, means the Provincial Government and
is relation to Cantonments, the Federal Government;
2[ff) "Law relating to Government"
means the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Punjab Ordinance No. VI of
1979), The Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (
g) "Party"
shall include any person whose presence as such is considered necessary for a
proper decision of the dispute and whom the
h) "Prescribed"
means prescribed by rules made under this Ordinance;
i) "Union
Council" means a Union Council Constited under a law relating to Local
Government and, except in the schedule, includes a Town Committee so
constituted;
j) "Ward"
means a ward, an electoral unit or an electoral ward of a city, municipality or
cantonment constituted under a law relating to Local Government and.
Legal Amendments
[1] Substituted for "Deputy Commissioner" by
the
[2] Clause (ff) inserted by the Conciliation Courts
(Amendment) Ordinance, XVIII of 1982, Section 2 (a).
3. Case referable to conciliation: 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1908) or in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (Act V o f1908),---
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 such case; and
b) any of
the cases falling under Part II of the Schedule may be so referred if all the
parties thereto agree to such a reference.
2) The
following cases relating to matters falling under Section B of Part I of the
Schedule or under Section B of Part II thereof shall be excluded from
conciliation, namely,---
a) cases to which the interest of a minor is involved;
b) cases where provision for arbitration has been made
in a contract between the parties;
c) cases by or against the Federal or a Provincial
Government or a public corporation or a public servant acting in the discharge
or his duty;
d) cases which according to the customary law of a
community are referable to a community Punchayat.
2 A) [Cases
relating to matters falling under Section A of Part I and Section A of Part II
of the Schedule, against any Government servant, shall be excluded from
conciliation except where a certificate is granted by Government or an Officer
authorized by Government in that behalf to the effect that the Government
servant had not acted in the discharge of his official duties.]1
3) [Government
may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to,----
a) add thereto any class of cases relating to such
disputes between private parties as are of a local nature and are capable of
settlement by compromise;
b) omit any entry therefrom; or
c) alter or modify any entry therein. ] 2
4) Nothing
in this Section shall apply to cases relating to an office specified in the
Schedule of the accused had previously been convicted of cognizable offence.
Legal Amendment
[1] Sub Section (2-A) inserted by
[2] Sub Section (3) Substituted by the
Court Decisions
Jurisdiction
Magistrate acquitting
accused under S. 148 and referring offences under Ss. 147, 447, 324 & 114,
to District Magistrate for trial by Conciliation Court, District Magistrate
sending case to Magistrate for trial instead of Conciliation Court Offences
being exclusively tribal by Conciliation Court conviction and sentence passed
by Magistrate, held, illegal-All Magistrates In Sind however being subsequently
appointed to perform functions of Chairmen, Local Council, respect of criminal
cases„ any Magistrate could not try criminal cases as Conciliation Court-Case
remanded for fresh trial. 1975 P Cr. L J 945
Jurisdiction-To be decided on basis of
case initially set up and not on its final result or course it takes during
trial, accused initially challaned under S. 324, Penal Code, but trial Court an
appraisal of evidence finding him liable under S. 323 only and with holding
further proceedings in view of bar created under S. 3 read with Sched., para. 1
to Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961-Held: Irrespective of fact that case
fell under Sched, para. 1 of Ordinance XLV of 1961, Criminal Court, was in
circumstances, competent to proceed with the case.
1970 P. Cr. L J 878
Contract
Word 'contract',
interpretation of-Word 'contract' stated in Part 1, Section B, subsection (1)
of Sched. appended to Ordinance, 1961 evidently contemplated only 'written
contract' and not 'oral contract'--Conciliation Courts, held, had no
jurisdiction to decide suits founded on oral contracts. 1985 M L D 364
When two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together noscuntur a sociis, they
are understood to be used in their cogent sense. They take, as it were their
colour from each other, that is the more general is restricted to sense
analogous to the less general. The word "contracts" in subsection
(1), section B, Part I of Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961,
has been used along with other words "receipts or other documents".
The context in which the word "contracts" has been used in the said
provision, therefore, can be said to indicate written contracts only.Where the
question was whether the word "contrasts" in subsection (1), section
B, Part I of Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance. 1961, includes both
oral and written contracts:---
Held, the word "contracts" in
subsection (1), section B of Part I of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961, has been used along with words receipts or other
documents". There are authorities for the proposition that "when two
or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together
noscuntur a sociis, they are understood to be used in their cogent sense".
"They take, as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more
general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general".
Therefore, the context in which the word contracts has been used in the said provision
clearly indicates that written contracts are only meant. P L D 1969 Supreme
Court 57
Muhammad Nurul Islam alias Yurm Islam v.
Anent Rain Sarma P L D 1965
Word 'contracts' in Schedule B, Part I, to Ordinance contemplates only written
contracts and not suits founded on oral contracts. Appellant making application
before Conciliation Court for recovery of amount from respondent not relying
upon a written contract--Conciliation Court, held, had no jurisdiction to try
dispute. 1988 S C M R 1146
Zamiruddin Ahmad v. Havas Khan P L D
1969 S C 57 rel.
Oral claim
Oral claim, held, could not be agitated
before conciliation Court as suit based on contracts in writing oily falling
within jurisdiction of Court. 1986 M L D 774 Movable property
Suit for damages-Conciliation Court
decreed the suit-Revision petition filed against such decree was dismissed
being time-barred-Validity-Suit by plaintiff was not the one mentioned at
Serial No.3 of section B of Part-I of Schedule of the Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961 i.e. suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging
movable property--Plaint showed that no movable property of plaintiff had
wrongfully been taken or damaged by defendants, rather it was the plaintiff,
who had removed the furniture and fixtures himself and had to suffer loss
because of the same-No suit for such voluntary act of plaintiff was
competent--No jurisdiction vested in the Conciliation Court to entertain such
suit or decree the same-Judgment/decree of Conciliation Court was wholly
without jurisdiction, void and non-existent-No limitation would run against a
void order, thus revisional Court had fallen in error to dismiss revision
petition on ground of limitation-Section 3 of the Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961, provided that cases falling under Part-II of Schedule could be
referred to Conciliation Court only with consent of all the parties
thereto-Defendants had never agreed to any such reference, thus suit filed by
plaintiff could not be tried by Conciliation Court by treating the same to be a
suit as described in Section B of Part-II of the Schedule to the Ordinance-High
Court accepted Constitutional petition and declared the impugned orders to be
without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 2002 C L C 1372
Objection not Raised
Contention that amount involved being
Rs. 324, Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to pass decree for amount and dispute
fell within pecuniary jurisdiction of conciliation Court-Held, High Court right
in observing such objection not open to petition in revision, due to decree
having been passed on objectors' admission. 1976 S C M R 519
Award
Respondent sued appellant-plaintiff for
specific performance of award which was in fact given by a third person
/arbitrator to which both parties agreed, as a Sharri Faisla (SHARRAI FAISLA )
given on a reference from Conciliation Court--Suit was decreed by trial Court
but on appeal District Judge dismissed same on ground that suit was barred
under S.32 of Arbitration Act and also because award which related to immovable
property was required to be registered under mandatory provisions of S.17(2) of
Registration Act, 1908 and was not registered--High Court however decreed suit
of respondent on ground that respondent required specific performance of
agreement and not award--Respondent had throughout based his case treating said
Sharri Faisla as an award and as appellant was resiling from it, respondent
wanted it to be enforced--Merely because document of award showed that it was
founded on agreement of parties and was signed by both of them, held, did not
ipso facto make it an agreement--Suit filed by respondent too was for
enforcement of award and not for specific performance of any agreement--Since
validity of this was being challenged by appellant, suit was not competent
being barred by provisions of S.32, Arbitration Act--Judgment and decree of
High Court set aside and that of District Judge dismissing suit of respondent
restored. 1988 S C M R 1146
Question of a fact
Question whether a certain Mohallah
wherein parties were residing was within jurisdiction of a Union Committee a
question of a fact which petitioner failed to raise before authority
below--Such question, held, could not be agitated in constitutional
jurisdiction. 1986 M L D 774
Nature of the case
In order to decide whether a case falls
within the mischief of section 3 (1) (a) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance,
1961, one must examine the case as a whole, and in its entirety, to ascertain
its nature and character and then decide upon its own facts as to whether it
falls within the mischief of that section or is outside its purview. If a case
does not fall within the mischief of section 3 (1) (a), its provisions would
not be attracted. The question as to whether a case falls within one category
or another has to be decided upon an examination of the intrinsic nature of the
case itself and not upon its eventual result or the course it takes during the
trial. A Magistrate may try an accused under section 325 or 327 of the Penal
Code, 1860 but he may eventually convict the accused under section 323 of the
Code. A complaint was made under section 325 of the Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution
witnesses as well as the medical man examined in the case also fortified the
complaint, The Magistrate after examining the prosecution witnesses, framed
charge, however, under section 323, P. P. C. A reference under section 438, Cr.
P. C. was made by the Sessions Judge and he recommended that the trial be
quashed inasmuch as a charge was framed against the accused persons under
section 323 of the Penal Code and therefore in view of section 3 (1) (a) of the
Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
proceed with the case:---
Held, the mere fact that the Magistrate
framed charge under section 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 did not alter the
character of the case itself which fell within section 325 and not section 323
of the Code. Besides, the law permits a Magistrate to alter a charge framed by
him at any stage of the trial. He could easily reconvert the charge into one
under section 325 of the Code. The case, in the circumstances, therefore, did
not fall within mischief of section 3(1)(a) of the Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961. P L D 1967
4. Application for constitution of a Conciliation
Court: 1) Where a case is, under this
Ordinance, referable to conciliation any party to dispute may, in the
prescribed manner, and on payment or the prescribed fee, apply to the Chairman
of the Union Council concerned [or, as the case may be, to the member
representing the ward, or, in the case of ward which has more members than one,
to such one of them as may be determined in the prescribed manner,] 1
for dispute, and unless the Chairman or, as the case may be, the member, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, rejects, the application, he shall proceed
to constitute, in the prescribed manner, a Conciliation Court for the purpose:---
Provided that
no application under this section shall be made person of unsound mind.
2) Any
person aggrieved by an order of rejection under sub-section (1) may, on the
ground that the order is mala fide or substantially unjust, prefer, in the
prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, an application for revision
to the Controlling Authority, or to such other authority as may be prescribed.
Legal Amendment
[1] Inserted by the
Court Decisions
Consent of the parties
Suit by plaintiff was not the one
mentioned at Serial No.3 of section B of Part-I of Schedule of the Conciliation
Courts Ordinance, 1961 i.e. suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or
damaging movable property-Plaint showed that no movable property of plaintiff
had wrongfully been taken or damaged by defendants, rather it was the
plaintiff, who had removed the furniture and fixtures himself and had to suffer
loss because of the same-No suit for such voluntary act of plaintiff was competent-No
jurisdiction vested in the Conciliation Court to entertain such suit or decree
the same-Judgment/decree of Conciliation Court was wholly without jurisdiction,
void and non-existent-No limitation would run against a void order, thus
provisional Court had fallen in error to dismiss revision petition on ground of
limitation-Section 3 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, provided that
cases falling under Part-II of Schedule could be referred to Conciliation Court
only with consent of all the parties thereto-Defendants had never agreed to any
such reference, thus suit filed by plaintiff could not be tried by Conciliation
Court by treating the same to be a suit as described in Section B of Part-II of
the Schedule to the Ordinance-High Court accepted Constitutional petition and
declared the impugned orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal
effect. 2002 C L C 1372
Member of Punchayat Committee
Respondent who claimed to be
Vice-Chairman of Conciliation Court, had issued notice to petitioners requiring
them to nominate a person to Conciliation Court in respect of some complaint
pending against them before Councilor and Chairman, Conciliation Court-Respondent
who issued notice admittedly was a member of Punchayat Committee for respective
unit-Respondent as member of Punchayat Committee could not function as Vice
Chairman of Conciliation Court unless he was appointed as such in accordance
with Ordinance, 1961-Notice issued by respondent was declared illegal having
been issued without lawful authority.
1993 M L D 455
5. Conciliation Courts, their composition, etc: 1) A Conciliation Court shall be body consisting of
Chairman and two representatives to be nominated, in the prescribed manner, by
each of the parties to the dispute.
Proviso Omitted
by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972) S. 2 and Schedule.
2) The
Chairman of the Union Council, [or, as the case may be, the member representing
the ward, or , in the case of a ward which has more members than one, such one
of them as may be determined in the prescribed manner,]1 shall be
the Chairman of the Conciliation Court, but where he is, owing to illness or
any other cause, unable to act as Chairman, or does not, on account of any
personal consideration, wish to do so, or his impartiality is challenged by any
party to the dispute, any other person appointed in the prescribed manner not
being a person nominated by any party, shall be the Chairman of the Court.
3) If either
party to the dispute consists of more than one person, the Chairman shall call
upon the persons constituting that part to nominate the two representatives on
its behalf, and if they fail so to nominate, shall authorize any one of such
persons to do so, and thereupon the person so authorized shall alone have the
right to nominate such representatives.
4) Where
representatives required under this section to be nominated are not nominated
within the prescribed time, then,---
a) if the case falls under Part I of the Schedule, the
Conciliation Court shall, without such representatives, be deemed to have been
validly constituted for the purposes of deemed to have been validly constituted
for the purposes of this Ordinance, and conciliation shall proceed accordingly;
and
b) if the
case falls under part Ii of the Schedule the court shall issue a certificate
that conciliation has failed.
Legal Amendments
[1] Inserted by the
Court Decisions
Constitution of
Failure of one party to nominate his
representative-Chairman duty bound in. terms of S. S(4)(b) to certify failure
of conciliation - Conciliation Court consisting of two representatives of one
of the parties and the Chairman, without any representative of other
party-Court not properly constituted as envisaged under S. S(1)-Decree passed
by such Court offends against statutory requirement of S. 5. P L D 1968
P L D 1965 Pesh. 149 and P L D 1966
Conciliation Court, constitution of --
Charge for offences under Part I of Sched. - Accused refusing to nominate their
representatives in Court-Chairman nominating two persons as accused's
representatives and convicting them -- Conciliation Court held not legally
constituted and proceedings without lawful authority. P L D 1970
6. Jurisdiction of Conciliation Courts, etc.: 1) Subject to the provision of sub-section (2), a
2) [Where one of the parties to a dispute ordinarily resides,
and the offence has been committed or the cause of action has arisen, in one
ward of a city, municipality or cantonment, and the other party ordinarily
resides in another ward of the same city, municipality or cantonment, then, a
Conciliation Court may be constituted in the ward in which the offence has been
committed or, as the case may be, the case of action has arisen.]2
Legal Amendments
[1] Substituted for "Limits of the
[2] Sub Section 2 Substituted by the
7. Power of Conciliation Courts to award compensation:
1) Save as otherwise provided in this
ordinance, a conciliation Court shall have no power to pass a sentence of
imprisonment or fine, but if it holds a person guilty of an offence specified
in the schedule, it may order the accused to pay to the aggrieved person
compensation the amount of which may not exceed five hundred rupees but if the
offence is one punishable under Section 428 or Section 429 of the Pakistan
Penal Code (Act XLC of 1860) the amount of compensation may exceed [five
hundred]1 rupees not [one thousand]2 rupees.
2) In a case relating to a matter falling under
Section B of Part I of the Schedule or under Section B of Part Ii thereof, the
Legal Amendments
[1] Substituted for "Two Hundred and fifty"
by the Conciliation Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, XVIII of 1982.
[2] Substituted for "Five Hundred" by the
Conciliation Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, XVIII of 1982.
8. Finality of the Decisions of Conciliation Courts: (1). Omitted by the law Reforms Ordinance, XII of
1972, S. 2 and Schedule.
(2)Any party may, within thirty days of the decision
of
a) to the Controlling Authority, if the case relates
to the decision of a falling under Sec. A of that Part, or
b) to the District Judge, if the case relates to a
matter falling under Sec. B thereof, and the Controlling Authority or the
District Judge, as the case may be, if satisfied that there has been a failure
of justice, may set aside or modify the decision, or direct that the dispute be
referred back to the Conciliation Court for reconsideration.
2 A)In the computation of the period of thirty days
provided under sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908)
shall apply.
1) If the decision of
2) Notwithstanding anything in any law any matter
decided by a conciliation Court in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance shall not be tried in any Court.
9. Enforcement of decree: 1) Where Conciliation Court decides to award
compensation to a person or to order the delivery of property, it shall pass a
decree in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall enter
the particulars thereof in the prescribed register.
2) If any money is paid or any property is delivered
in the presence of the conciliation court in satisfaction of the decree, it
shall enter the fact of payment or delivery, as the case may be, in the
aforesaid register.
3) Where a decree relates to payment of compensation
and the decretal amount is not paid within the prescribed time, the same shall,
if the Chairman of the
4) Where the satisfaction of a decree can be had
otherwise than by payment of compensation, the decree may be presented for
execution to such civil Court as the District Judge may, by special or general
order, direct, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to execute the decree as
if it were a decree passed by itself.
10. Procedure on failure of conciliation: Where a certificate is issued that conciliation has
failed, either under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Sec. 5 or under
sub-section or under sub-section (3) of Sec. 8, any party to the dispute may
see, its remedy in the Court in which it would in law be entitled to seek such
remedy if this Ordinance had not been promulgated.
11. Power of Conciliation Courts to summon witnesses,
etc.
a) No person who is exempt from personal appearance in
Court under sub-section (1) of Sec. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Act V of 1908), shall be required to appear in person;
b) A Conciliation Court may refuse to summon a witness
or to enforce a summons already issued against a witness when in the opinion of
the Court the attendance of the witness cannot be procured without such delay,
expense or inconvenience as in the circumstances would be unreasonable.
c) A Conciliation Court shall not require any person
living beyond its jurisdiction to give evidence or to produce or cause the
production of a document unless such sum of money is deposited for payment to
him as the Court would think sufficient for defraying his travelling and other
expenses.
1) If any person to whom a
12. Contempt of Conciliation Courts. A person shall be guilty of contempt of
a) Offers any insult to the
b) causes any interruption in the work of the
c) fails to produce or deliver a document when ordered
by the
d) refuses to answer any question of the
e) refuses to take oath to state the truth or to sign
any statement made by him when required by the
and the
12-A Revision against sentence. Any person sentenced by a Conciliation Court under
Sec. 11 or 12 may, within thirty days from the date on which the sentence is
passed, apply in the manner prescribed for an application under sub-section (2)
of Sec. 8,---
a) To the Controlling Authority, if sentence has been
passed in a case relating to a matter falling under Sec. A of Part I or Sec. A of
Part II of the Schedule; and
b) To the District judge, if the case relates to a
matter falling under Sec. B of Part I or Sec. B or Part II of the Schedule, and
the controlling Authority or the District Judge, as the case may be, if
satisfied that there has been a failure or justice, may set aside or modify the
sentence.]1
Legal Amendments
[1] Section (12-A) added by the
Conciliation Courts (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, XIII of 1963, S. 2.
13. Recovery of fine: 1) Where a Conciliation Court imposes a fine under
Sec. 11 or Sec. 12 and such fine is not immediately paid, it shall recorded an
order stating the amount of fine imposedand the fact that it has not been paid,
and shall forward the same to the nearest Magistrate who shall proceed to
recover it in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (Act V of 1898), as if it were a fine imposed by himself, and such
Magistrate may also sentence the accused to imprisonment in default of payment
of such fine.
2) All fines paid to Conciliation Court under Section
11 and 12, or collected on behalf of Conciliation Court under this section,
shall form part of the funds of the [local council] 1 concerned.
[Explanation: In
this sub-section ‘local council’ means a Union Council, Town Committee,
Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, Metropolitan Corporation, or, as
the case may be, Cantonment Board constituted under a law relating to Local
Government.]2
Legal Amendments
[1] Substituted for Union Council by the Conciliation
Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, XVIII of 1982, S. 8 (a)
[2] Explanation added by the Conciliation Courts
(Amendment) Ordinance, XVIII of 1982, S. 8 (a)
14. Limitation, etc., in certain cases: Where a case relating to a matter falling under
Section B of Part II of the Schedule is referred to Conciliation and
Conciliation fails, and the case is subsequently taken to a civil Court, in
computing the period of limitation. Prescribed therefor by or under any law of
the time being in force, the time spent on Conciliation proceedings, commencing
from the date of the application made under Section 4 and ending on the day the
certificate of failure f Conciliation is issued, shall, notwithstanding
anything in the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), be excluded.
15. Procedure: 1)
[Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Ordinance, the provision
of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), other than those contained in Section
123, 124 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), and the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1808) shall not apply to proceedings before
any Conciliation Court.)]1
2) Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873 (X of
1873), shall apply to all proceedings before Conciliation Courts.
Legal Amendment
[1] Substituted for Sub Section (1) by the
Conciliation Courts (
16.
No appearance through counsel: 1 No appearance through counsel:
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal
Practitioners Act, 1879 (XVIII of 1879) no legal practitioner shall be
permitted to appear on behalf of any party to a dispute before any
2) If a person required under this Ordinance to appear
before a
Legal Amendments
[1] Omitted by the Conciliation Courts (
[2] Inserted by the Conciliation Courts (
[3]Substituted for "her" by the Conciliation
Courts (
17. Transfer of certain cases: 1) Where the Controlling Authority is of the opinion
that the circumstances of a case relating to matter falling under Section A of
Part I of the Schedule or under Section A of Part II thereof and pending before
a Conciliation Court are such that the public interest and the ends of Justice
demand its trial in a criminal Court, the said authority may, notwithstanding
anything contained in this Ordinance, withdraw the same from the Conciliation
Court and direct that it be referred to the criminal Court for trial and
disposal.
18. Investigation by police: Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the police
from investigating a cognizable case by reason of the fact that the case
relates to an offence specified in Section A of Part I of the Schedule, but if
any such case is taken to a criminal Court, such Court may, it thinks fit,
direct that it be referred to Conciliation under this ordinance.
Court Decisions
Discretion under S.18
Respondents on complaint filed by
petitioner were summoned by Magistrate to face trial under Ss.323/34 & 506,
P.P.C: =-Respondent challenged the order in revision---Sessions Court accepted
the revision petition holding that offences under Ss.323/34 & 506, Part I,
P.P.C. having been made out on the record against the accused were tribal by
the Conciliation Court and directed the Trial Court to send the complaint to
the Conciliation Court for trial---Held, the complaint being synonymous to F.I.R.
was being investigated by the Trial Magistrate who exercising his discretion
under S.18 of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, could either try the
complaint himself or send the same to Conciliation Court for trial---Order of
Sessions Court was set aside accordingly with the direction to refer the case
to the Magistrate for trial in accordance with law. 1995 P Cr, L J 245
Discretion under S.18 of the
Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, lies with the Trial Magistrate either to
send the case to the
If a cognizable case, when investigated
by police, was put in Court of a Magistrate, it was, held, within discretion of
Magistrate either to try case himself or to refer it to
Jurisdiction-To be decided on basis of
case initially set up and not on its final result or course it takes during
trial, accused initially challaned under S. 324, Penal Code, but trial Court an
appraisal of evidence finding him liable under S. 323 only and with holding
further proceedings in view of bar created under S. 3 read with Sched., para. 1
to Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961---Held: Irrespective of fact that case
fell under Sched, para. 1 of Ordinance XLV of 1961, Criminal Court, was in
circumstances, competent to proceed with the case. 1970 P. Cr. L J 878
19. Pending cases: This Ordinance shall not apply to cases referable under this Ordinance
to Conciliation which, immediately before the coming into force of this
Ordinance, are pending in any civil or criminal Court, and such cases shall be
disposed of by these Courts as if this Ordinance had not been promulgated:---
Provided that if
all the parties to any such case agree to have the same decided by a Court, the
proceedings thereof shall terminate, and the case shall be referred to
Conciliation in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
20. Power to exempt: Government may, by notification in the official
Gazette, exempt any area or areas, or any case or class of cases, or any
community from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance.
21. Power to make rules: Government may, by notification in the official
Gazette, make rules to carry into effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SCHEDULE
PART – I
SECTION A—CRIMINAL CASES
1. Sections 143 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code
read with the Third or the Fourth clause of Section 141 of that (Act XLV of
1860), when the common object of the unlawful assembly is to commit an offence
under Section 323, or 426, or 447 of that code, and when not more than ten
persons are involved in the unlawful assembly.
2. Sections 160, 323, 334, 341, 342,352, 358, 426,
447, 504, 506, (first part), 508, 509, and 510, Pakistan Penal Code.
3. Sections 403, 406, 417, and 420, Pakistan Penal
Code, when the amount in respect of which the offence is committed does not
exceed three thousand rupees.
4. Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code, when the value of
the property involved does not three thousand rupees.
5. Sections 428 and 429 Pakistan Penal Code, when the
value of the animal does not exceed three thousand rupees.
6. Sections 24, 26 and 27 of the Cattle-trespass Act,
1871 (I of 1871)
7. Attempts to commit or the abatement of the
commission of any of the above offences.
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. |
|
4 |
Suit
for damage by cattle trespass. |
PART II
SECTION A-CRIMINAL CASES
1. Sections 324, 343, 355, 357, 430, 448, 461, 498,
500, 501, and 502, <> Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)
2. Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code, when the value of
the property involved does not exceed seven hundred rupees.
3. Sections 380 and 381, Pakistan Penal Code, when the
amount in respect of which the offence is committed exceeds one hundred rupees,
but does not exceed four thousand rupees.
4. Sections 403, 406, 417, and 420, Pakistan Penal
Code, with the amount in respect of which the offence is committed exceeds one
hundred rupees, but does not exceed four thousand rupees.
5. Section 408, Pakistan Penal Code, when the value of
property involved does not exceed one hundred rupees.
6. Section 411, Pakistan Penal code, when the value of
the property involved does not exceed seven hundred rupees..
7. Sections 428 and 429, Pakistan Penal Code, when the
value of the animal exceeds one hundred rupees, but does not exceed five
hundred rupees.
8. Section 451, Pakistan Penal Code, when the offence
is committed with the intention of committing any of the offences mentioned in
Section A of Part I of this Schedule or in this section.
9. Attempts to commit or the abetment of the
commission of any of the above offences.
SECTION B-CIVIL CASES
All civil cases (excepting those mentioned in Section B of Part I of this
Schedule), in which the value of the claim does not exceed one lac rupees.
NOTES
Amendment made vide Notification dated 18th
July, 1982
Court Decisions
Jurisdiction
Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to pass
decree for amount and dispute fell within pecuniary jurisdiction of conciliation
Court-Held, High Court right in observing such objection not open to petition
in revision, due to decree having been passed on objectors' admission. 1976
S C M R 519
Suit by plaintiff was not the one
mentioned at Serial No.3 of section B of Part-I of Schedule of the Conciliation
Courts Ordinance, 1961 i.e. suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or
damaging movable property-Plaint showed that no movable property of plaintiff
had wrongfully been taken or damaged by defendants, rather it was the
plaintiff, who had removed the furniture and fixtures himself and had to suffer
loss because of the same-No suit for such voluntary act of plaintiff was
competent-No jurisdiction vested in the Conciliation Court to entertain such
suit or decree the same-Judgment/decree of Conciliation Court was wholly
without jurisdiction, void and non-existent-No limitation would run against a
void order, thus revisional Court had fallen in error to dismiss revision
petition on ground of limitation-Section 3 of the Conciliation Courts
Ordinance, 1961, provided that cases falling under Part-II of Schedule could be
referred to Conciliation Court only with consent of all the parties
thereto-Defendants had never agreed to any such reference, thus suit filed by
plaintiff could not be tried by Conciliation Court by treating the same to be a
suit as described in Section B of Part-II of the Schedule to the Ordinance-High
Court accepted Constitutional petition and declared the impugned orders to be
without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 2002 C L C 1372
Question whether a certain Mohallah
wherein parties were residing was within jurisdiction of a Union Committee a
question of a fact which petitioner failed to raise before authority below-Such
question, held, could not be agitated in constitutional jurisdiction. 1986 M
L D 774
Oral contracts
Where the question was whether the word
"contrasts" in subsection (1), section B, Part I of Schedule to the
Conciliation Courts Ordinance. 1961, includes both oral and written contracts:
Held, the word "contracts" in subsection (1), section B of Part I of
the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, has been used along
with words receipts or other documents". There are authorities for the
proposition that "when two or more words which are susceptible of
analogous meaning are coupled together noscuntur a sociis, they are understood
to be used in their cogent sense". "They take, as it were their color
from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous
to the less general". Therefore, the context in which the word contracts
has been used in the said provision clearly indicates that written contracts
are only meant. P L D 1969 Supreme Court 57
Appellant making application before
Conciliation Court for recovery of amount from respondent not relying upon a
written contract-Conciliation Court, held, had no jurisdiction to try dispute.
1988 S C M R 1146
Word 'contracts' in Schedule B, Part I,
to Ordinance contemplates only written contracts and not suits founded on oral
contracts. 1988 S C M R 1146
Oral claim, held, could not be agitated
before conciliation Court as suit based on contracts in writing oily falling
within jurisdiction of Court. Word "contracts" used alongwith words
"receipts or other documents"-Context in which word
"Contracts" used, in clause 1 of Section B of Schedule to Ordinance
XLIV of 1961 indicated written contracts only. 1986 M L D 774
Panel Code
Whether case falls within mischief of S.
3(1)(a)-Case as a whole to be examined in its entirety for ascertaining its
nature and character-Complaint under S. 325, P. P. C. and same fortified by
prosecution and medical witnesses-Mere fact that Magistrate framed charge under
S. 323, P. P. C.-Would not alter character of case itself so as to oust his own
jurisdiction-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 323 & 325.
In order to decide whether a case falls
within the mischief of section 3 (1) (a) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance,
1961, one must examine the case as a whole, and in its entirety, to ascertain
its nature and character and then decide upon its own facts as to whether it
falls within the mischief of that section or is outside its purview. If a case
does not fall within the mischief of section 3 (1) (a), its provisions would
not be attracted. The question as to whether a case falls within one category
or another has to be decided upon an examination of the intrinsic nature of the
case itself and not upon its eventual result or the course it takes during the
trial. A Magistrate may try an accused under section 325 or 327 of the Penal
Code, 1860 but he may eventually convict the accused under section 323 of the
Code. A complaint was made under section 325 of the Penal Code, 1860. The
prosecution witnesses as well as the medical man examined in the case also
fortified the complaint, The Magistrate after examining the prosecution
witnesses, framed charge, however, under section 323, P. P. C. A reference
under section 438, Cr. P. C. was made by the Sessions Judge and he recommended
that the trial be quashed inasmuch as a charge was framed against the accused
persons under section 323 of the Penal Code and therefore in view of section 3
(1) (a) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 the Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to proceed with the case:---
Held, the mere fact that the Magistrate
framed charge under section 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 did not alter the
character of the case itself which fell within section 325 and not section 323
of the Code. Besides, the law permits a Magistrate to alter a charge framed by him
at any stage of the trial. He could easily reconvert the charge into one under
section 325 of the Code. The case, in the circumstances, therefore, did not
fall within mischief of section 3(1)(a) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance,
1961. P L D 1967 375
Criminal trial-Jurisdiction-To be
decided on basis of case initially set up and not on its final result or course
it takes during trial, accused initially challenged under S. 324, Penal Code,
but trial Court an appraisal of evidence finding him liable under S. 323 only
and with holding further proceedings in view of bar created under S. 3 read
with Sched., para. 1 to Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961-Held: Irrespective
of fact that case fell under Sched, para. 1 of Ordinance XLV of 1961, Criminal
Court, was in circumstances, competent to proceed with the case.
1970 P. Cr. L J 878
Go to Index
| LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II
| LL. B. – III | LL. B.
Directory | Home