The objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ought to have been raised before the trial Court. Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 runs as under:-

8. Reference is also made to the judgment reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others vs. Khalil Ahmad and others (2008 SCMR 116), the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: 

“The question of ouster of jurisdiction being a mixed question of facts and law in the present case as the provision of sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 would reveal, the objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ought to have been raised before the trial Court. Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 runs as under:- "29. Bar of suit.--- No act done, order made or proceeding taken by a Board in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be called in question in any Court. 31. Protection of acts and order under the Act.--- No suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a Committee, a Member or a Committee or an Officer or employee of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act and the regulation and rules made thereunder." Bare reading of section 31 shows that the same does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court generally but only bars suits against the official of the Board acting in good faith. Section 29 also does not completely oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court preventing the Courts to examine as to whether the action taken was within the framework of the law. A factual foundation therefore, was required to be laid in order to examine whether the ouster clause would be attracted. Such foundation was only possible if objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was raised in the written statement and issue framed, thereby providing opportunity to the plaintiff to furnish relevant evidence. That not done the said objection cannot be now raised for the first time. Interestingly the point was not even taken up in the petition for leave to appeal. (emphasis supplied)

 Part of Judgment 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition-Miscellanous-Civil Suit
30622-14

2017 LHC 2371