| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3184 1970 SLD 3184 = 1970 PLD 577 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Civil Revision Application No. 111 of 1966, decided on 29th January 1969.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Ali Ahmed Shaikh for Appellants. Muhammad All Saeed for
Respondent.
Civil Revision Application No. 111 of 1966, decided on 29th January 1969.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Ali Ahmed Shaikh for Appellants. Muhammad All Saeed for
Respondent.
Haji RAHMATULLAH AND ANOTHER Plaintiffs
VERSUS
STANDARD BANK LTD., KARACHI-Defendant
Law:
Section: 4(1)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, r. 4 (1) Dismissal of suit for want of jurisdiction -Judicial order-Order should contain reasons for dismissal-Small Cause Court dismissing suit stating briefly : "this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit" -Practice deprecated. (b) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), S. 15 (1) and Second Sched., Entry 35 (1)-Words "injury to the person" in entry 35 (1), Second Sched.-Used in reference to personal injuries as distinct from injury to property. Suit of the plaintiff against the defendant (a bank) for recovery of certain amount as loss caused to him by the bank's negligence was challenged to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court being barred by the provisions of entry No. 35 (1) of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as falling within the meaning of the words "injury to the person". Held : the words "injury to the person" are plain and unambiguous, and are used in reference to personal injuries as distinct from injury to the property of a person, therefore the claim of the applicants does not fall under Entry 35(1) of the Second Schedule and their suit is not barred under the Second Schedule of the Act. (c) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961), S. 3 and Sched, Part I, Section B -Provisions of Ordinance do not apply to actions in tort-Conciliation Court cannot take cognizance of such claims Jurisdiction of civil Courts-Not ousted when claim based on negligence or tort. Applicants, who had an account with defendant-bank "A", received a cheque for Rs. 5`'0 from a party which was drawn on bank "B". The cheque was entrusted to bank "A" (defendant) for collection and this bank obtained a draft from bank "B" drawn on bank "C". The defendant-bank "A" instead of presenting the draft for payment at the bank "C" exchanged it with another bank "D" for cheque issued by that bank. The cheque of bank "D" was not honoured and the applicants were thus not credited with the proceeds of that cheque and suffered loss. Applicants…