Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAJI HUSSAIN MUKHI VS Respondent: KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
P L D 1962 (W
P L D 1962 (W. P.) Karachi 602
Before Inamullah, J
Haji HUSSAIN MUKHI‑Applicant
Versus
KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 166 of 1960, decided on 20th April 1962.
Karachi Municipal Act (XVII of 1933), Ss. 107 & 250 read with Rule 6 of Sch. 8, Ch. II‑‑Chief Judge, Small Causes Court acts as persona designata and not as Court‑Chief Judge's order not revisable‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.
Balaji Sakaram v. Merwanji Nowroji I L R 21 Bom. 279 ; Bhaishankar v. Municipal Corporation I L R 31 Bom. 604 ; Naval kar v. Sarojini Naidu 25 Dom. L R 463 and Ahmad Sulleman Dinath v. Municipal Commissioner of Bombay 32 Dom. L R 178 rel.
Somji for Appellant.
Fazle Haq for Opponent.
Date of bearing? 20th April 1962.
JUDGMENT
This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Karachi under section 107 of the Karachi Municipal Act, 1933 dismissing an appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred. A prelimi nary objection as to jurisdiction of this Court has been taken by Mr. Fazle Haq, the learned Advocate for the K. M. C. on the ground that tie Chief Judge is not a Court but a persona designata and his order under section 107 of the K. M. C. Act is final. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Fazle Haq. In this connection section 250 of the K. M. C. Act may also be consider ed. It runs asunder
"250. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, the Judge of the Karachi Small Causes Court shall exercise all the powers and jurisdiction expressly conferred on or vested 1n the said Judge by the provisions of this Act ; and, unless it is otherwise expressly provided by this Act, his decision shall be final in any matter in respect of which he exercises such powers or jurisdiction."
It is clear from a perusal of the above that the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court exercises jurisdiction under the K. b4. C. Act as persona destgnata and not as a Court. Moreover, Rule 6 of Schedule 8, Chapter II, also supports the contention of Mr. Fazle Haq that the Judge Small (causes Court sits in appeal over the decision of the Municipal Authority as persona designata and not as a Court. Rule 6 lays down that when all complaints have been disposed of, the assessment list will be authenticated by the Chief Officer. After it has been authenticated it shall be accepted as conclusive evidence of the amount of each property tax leviable on each building and land in the City in the financial year to which the list relates subject to subsection (4) of section 107 which relates to appeal to the Small Causes Court Judge. The K. M. C. Act it would appear does not recognise any other authority competent to sit in judgment over the order passed by the Small Causes Court Judge.
2. There are a string of decisions of the Bombay High Court namely Balaji Sakaram v. Merwanji Noaroji (I L R 21 Bom. 279), Bhafshankar v. Municipal Corporation (I L R 31 Dom. 604), Navalkar v. Sarojini Naidu (25 Bom. L R 463) and Ahmed Solleman Dinath v. Municipal Commissioner of Bombay (32 Dom. L R 178) which have held while Interpreting a similar provision as section 107 of the Bombay Municipal Act, III of 1888 that the Judge, Small Causes Court acts as a persona designata and not as a Court.
3. I would, for the reasons given above, hold that this Court cannot Interfere under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order passed by tire Small Causes Court Judge under section 107 of the Karachi Municipal Act.
S. B. Petition rejected.