IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L 
TO 3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 
2016 & 69-L OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in FAO Nos. 213 to 216, 218, 239 to 258, 289 to 292 of 2015) 
 
 
State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan  
through its Chairman etc 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner 
 
VERSUS 
 
Mst. Sardar Begum 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3195-L/2016) 
Mst. Irshad Begum 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3196-L/2016) 
Mst. Abida Parveen 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3197-L/2016) 
Mst. Tasneem Akhtar 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3198-L/2016) 
Mst. Nuzhat Parveen 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3268-L/2016) 
Mst. Parveen Akhtar 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3269-L/2016) 
Mst. Bashiran Bibi 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3352-L/2016) 
Malik Muhammad Ayub  
 
 
 
(In CP 3353-L/2016) 
Niaz Ali 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3354-L/2016) 
Mst. Nusrat Ara 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3355-L/2016) 
Mst. Robina Shaheen 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3356-L/2016) 
Riaz Ahmad Naveed 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3357-L/2016) 
Haji Muhammad Sharif etc 
 
 
 
(In CP 3358-L/2016) 
Mst. Syed Mazhara Fatima 
 
 
 
(In CP 3570/2016) 
Mst. Shamshad Akhter  
 
 
 
(In CP 3571/2016) 
Ghulam Raza Sajid 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3572/2016) 
Mst. Khalida Parveen 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3573/2016) 
Mst. Rukhsana Kausar  
 
 
 
(In CP 3574/2016) 
Mst Kaneez Begum 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3575/2016) 
Mst. Safia Bibi 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3576/2016) 
Mst. Kaneez Bibi (decd) through LRs  
 
(In CP 3603/2016) 
Mst. Rukia Bibi 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3604/2016) 
Mst. Inayat Begum 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3631/2016) 
Mst. Anwar Begum 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3669/2016) 
Mst. Rashida Bibi  
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3670/2016) 
Mst. Razia Begum  
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3671/2016) 
Mst. Zareena Bibi  
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3672/2016) 
Mst. Shafqat Jahan 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3673/2016) 
Mst. Bashiran Bibi 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 69-L/2017) 
 
… Respondents 
 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
2
For the Petitioner:  
Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CPs 3195-L to 3198-L/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ibrar Ahmed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CPs 3268-L, 3269-L, 3669 TO 3673/2016 & 69-
L/2017) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CPs 3352-L TO 3358-L/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
Rana Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
Mr. Safdar Ali Qureshi, Law Officer, State Life 
Insurance Corporation 
(In CPs 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604 & 3631/2016) 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Liaqat Ali Butt, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 3195-L/2016)  
 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
 
 
 
 
(In all CPs except CP 3195-L/2016) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
28.03.2017 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The dispute in all these connected 
cases is with regard to determining the correct place of suing under 
the provisions of the repealed Insurance Act, 1938 as there is no 
dispute between the parties that suits can still be filed before the 
forum provided in the repealed Act for any relief in respect of contract 
of insurance executed when the repealed Act was in operation. This 
has also been held by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in the 
case of Mst. Robina Bibi Vs. State Life Insurance (2013 CLD 477).  
 
2.  
 
For the settlement of their respective claims arising from 
the contracts of insurance executed when the repealed Insurance Act, 
1938 was in operation, the respondents filed suits against the 
petitioners in the Courts of various District Judges of Punjab. In all 
such suits, the petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
3
of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking return of the plaints back to the 
respondents to be presented in the Civil Courts of appropriate 
jurisdiction. The basis for moving such applications was that as 
Section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938 provides that the holder of 
insurance policy can sue the insurer in any Court of competent 
jurisdiction, such Court, by virtue of Section 15 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, has to be the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the 
suit, hence, the Civil Court and not the District Court has jurisdiction.  
 
3. 
 
Accepting the plea of the petitioner as to the place of 
suing, the District Judges of various districts, by applying the 
provisions of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, returned the 
plaints to the respondents to be presented before the Civil Courts of 
competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents challenged 
such decision before the Lahore High Court in appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 
213 to 216, 218, 239 to 258, 289 to 292 of 2015, which were clubbed 
together for decision. The Lahore High Court vide single consolidated 
judgment dated 14.10.2016, set aside the orders of the District Judges 
after holding that as Section 2 (6) of the Insurance Act, 1938 defines 
‘Court’ to be ‘the principle Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a district’ 
and the Courts of the District Judges being undisputedly the principal 
Civil Courts of Original jurisdiction of their respective districts, the 
suits are to be tried not by the Civil Courts but by the District Courts 
having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. The 
petitioner has impugned the decision of the Lahore High Court in 
these petitions and have sought leave to appeal.  
 
4. 
 
A team of four lawyers engaged by the petitioners in 
various sets of these 29 connected petitions argued in common that 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
4
the definition of ‘Court’ contained in Section 2(6) of the Insurance Act, 
which states ‘Court’ means ‘the principal Civil Court of Original 
jurisdiction in a district,…’ is not relevant for determining the place of 
suing. They maintained that on the contrary, for determining the place 
of suing, the phrase ‘….. sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any 
Court of competent jurisdiction’ contained in Section 46 of the 
Insurance Act is relevant which when read with the provisions of 
Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate that every suit shall 
be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it and 
the Civil Court being such a Court, the proceedings for seeking any 
relief relating to insurance policy can only be competently initiated in 
the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the matter. As to the definition of 
‘Court’ contained in Section 2(6) of the Insurance Act, it was argued 
that this definition is relevant only for determining the forum where 
money payable under insurance policy is to be deposited by the 
insurer, as envisaged under Section 47(1) of the said Act and cannot 
override the phrase ‘in any Court of competent jurisdiction’ contained in 
Section 46. It was lastly argued that in case this Court upholds the 
impugned decision of the Lahore High Court then it would deprive the 
petitioners even the right of appeal, which would have been otherwise 
available to it, in case the suits are tried by the Court of the first 
instance i.e. the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In support of 
their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the 
cases of Mst. Robina Bibi Vs. State Life Insurance (2013 CLD 477), 
Mst. Naseem Begum Vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan 
(2014 SCMR 655), Patricia Ann Patel Vs. Gerald Cowling Patel (PLD 
1972 Karachi 444), Akhtar Hussain Zaidi Vs. Abdul Majeed (PLD 1986 
Lahore 663), S. Ghulam Dastagir & Sons Vs. Union Insurance 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
5
Company of Pakistan Ltd (PLD 1995 Lahore 290), Lahore Race Club 
Vs. Khushbakht-ur-Rehman (2008 CLD 1117), Ghulam Nabi Vs. 
Muqarab Hussain (PLD 1974 Karachi 408), State Life Insurance 
Corporation of Pakistan Vs. Mst. Bashiran Bibi (2015 CLD 342) and 
All India Motor Transport Mutual Insurance Co Vs. Raphael George of 
Bombay Indian Inhabitant (AIR 1963 Bangal 7).  
 
5. 
 
In order to appreciate the arguments of petitioners’ 
counsel, contents of Sections 2(6) and 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938, 
being relevant, are reproduced for the sake of convenience:- 
 
2(6) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of Original 
jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in 
exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. 
 
46. The holder of a policy of insurance issued by an insurer 
in respect of insurance business transacted in Pakistan 
after the commencement of this Act shall have the right, 
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the 
policy or in any agreement relating thereto, to receive 
payment in Pakistan of any sum secured thereby and to 
sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any Court of 
competent jurisdiction in Pakistan; and if the suit is brought 
in Pakistan any question of law arising in connection with 
any such policy shall be determined according to the law in 
force in Pakistan. 
(Underlining is ours). 
 
6. 
 
Section 2(6) of the Insurance Act, 1938 gives composite 
meaning to the term ‘Court’. The first part says ‘the principal Civil Court 
of Original jurisdiction in a district’. Undoubtedly this part of the 
definition points towards the Courts of the District Judges which act 
as the principal Court of Original jurisdiction in every district. Hence, 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
6
in absence of any exception provided in any other provision of the 
Insurance Act, 1938 with reference to a Court, no other meaning can 
be attributed to such part of the definition other than a District Court. 
Now the question arises as to why the need arose to use the phrase ‘in 
any Court of competent jurisdiction’ in Section 46 and mere mention of 
‘Court’ was not enough. There appears to be a strong reason for that. 
The second part of the definition of ‘Court’ contained in Section 2(6) 
states “and includes the High Court in exercise of its Ordinary Original 
Civil jurisdiction”. As three High Courts of the sub-continent 
possessing ‘Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction’ were also given 
jurisdiction to entertain such suits, which were also called the 
Presidency High Courts i.e. High Courts of Bombay, Madras and 
Calcutta, it was necessary to mention in Section 46 ‘in any Court of 
competent jurisdiction’. Furthermore, the principal seat of Sindh High 
Court at Karachi also possesses jurisdiction to act as the principal 
Civil Court of Original jurisdiction for the district of Karachi, which 
jurisdiction though not the same as the ‘Ordinary Original Civil 
jurisdiction’ conferred on the High Court of Bombay, Madaras and 
Calcutta, nevertheless it exercises jurisdiction as the District Court of 
Karachi (now covering all five districts of Karachi). Such jurisdiction of 
Sindh High Court exercised only at its principal seat stands covered 
under the first part of the definition of ‘Court’ provided in Section 2(6) 
of the Insurance Act, 1938. With regard to the nature of jurisdiction 
exercised by Sindh High Court discussed above, reference can be 
made to a decision of this Court in the case of Province of Sindh Vs. 
Hafiz Razzaq (1991 SCMR 920). Therefore, for any relief relating to a 
contract of insurance, if suit is to be filed in any of the five districts of 
Karachi then depending upon the pecuniary value of the suit, which is 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
7
prescribed under the law from time to time, it is to be filed either in 
the District Court having jurisdiction on the subject matter or in the 
principal seat of the Sindh High Court at Karachi. Then by virtue of 
Section 4 of the Islamabad High Court Act, the Islamabad High Court 
possess Original jurisdiction for suits which is exercised in the 
districts of the Capital Territory of Islamabad, subject of course to the 
pecuniary limit that is prescribed by law from time to time for the 
suits. So for any relief relating to contract of insurance arising from 
the Insurance Act, 1938, depending upon the pecuniary value and 
territorial jurisdiction a suit can be filed in the Original jurisdiction of 
the Islamabad High Court as well. On account of all these multiple 
forums available for filing of the suit under Section 2(6) i.e. the phrase 
‘in any Court of competent jurisdiction’ had to be used in Section 46 so 
that appropriate Court competent to try the suit could be identified for 
filing of the suit. Therefore, when Section 46 provides that for any 
relief arising from the contract of insurance, suit is to be filed in the 
Court of competent jurisdiction, then taking aid from the provisions of 
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and keeping in view the 
pecuniary value of the suit, it is to be filed in any of the two District 
Courts as provided in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in 
the concerned High Court competent to try the suit but certainly not 
in the Civil Court.  
 
7. 
 
As to the argument that the definition of ‘Court’ in Section 
2(6) of the Insurance Act was meant only for deposit of money in Court 
by an insurer and for such reason the term ‘Court’ appearing in 
Section 47(1) is not followed by the term ‘competent jurisdiction’, the 
relevant provision of Section 47(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938 reads 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
8
“….to pay the amount into the Court within the jurisdiction of which is 
situated the place at which such amount is payable under the terms of 
the policy or otherwise….”. It shows that the use of the term ‘Court’ in 
Section 47(1) was intended to leave it to the parties to agree in which 
Court the amount payable under the terms of the policy or otherwise 
was to be deposited by the insurer. As it was to be left to the parties to 
choose the Court in which money was to be deposited, the definition of 
‘Court’ provided in Section 2(6) would certainly not be attracted. The 
application of the definition of ‘Court’ as provided in Section 2(6) to the 
term ‘Court’ appearing in Section 47(1) would have left no choice with 
the parties to select for themselves the Court where money was to be 
deposited by the insurer. This would have nullified the context in 
which the term ‘Court’ in Section 47(1) of the Insurance Act was used. 
So this argument of the petitioners’ counsel is also misconceived.  
 
8. 
 
As to the argument that for the purpose of determining the 
place of suing, provisions of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 
are to be taken into consideration which provides that the suits are to 
be filed in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit, 
suffice it is to state that Section 15 cannot be read in disregard of the 
provisions of Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of 
Muhammad Siddiq Vs. Zawar Hussain (PLJ 1976 SC 493), after 
quoting Section 4(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, it was held by this 
Court as under:- 
“It is no doubt true that whenever any special jurisdiction is 
created or a power is conferred upon a Civil Court then in the 
absence of any provision to the contrary, the provisions of the 
Code will apply to such proceedings. But it is equally well settled 
that in the case of any conflict between the provisions of the 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
9
Code and any local law the latter will over-ride any provisions to 
the contrary contained in the Code.”  
 
Hence where a Special law determines a place of suing, which in the 
present case in terms of Section 2(6) could be either the principal Civil 
Court of Original jurisdiction in a district or the special Civil 
jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court and Islamabad High Court, the 
same would prevail over the provisions of Section 15 of Code of Civil 
Procedure. It is now trite law that the provisions of special law always 
override the provisions of the general law to the extent of any conflict 
or inconsistency between the two. When it comes to filing of a suit 
under the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, Section 15 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure would stand eclipsed as it comes under the shadow of 
Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 4 (1) of the Code 
inter alia provides ‘……nothing in the code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise 
affect any special or local law … or any special jurisdiction …conferred by or under 
any other law for the time being in force.’ Thus the Court competent to try the 
suit would only be the one that falls within the definition of Section 
2(6) of the Insurance Act, 1938.  
 
9. 
 
With regard to the argument of petitioner’s counsel that in 
case it is held that the suits are to be filed before the principal Civil 
Court of Original jurisdiction of a district, it would deprive the 
petitioner the right of appeal which would have been otherwise 
available had the suits been filed in the Civil Court, in our view such 
an apprehension is misconceived. We may point out that the right of 
appeal is creation of statue and where the legislature does not provide 
for it, the same cannot be claimed as an inherent right. Having said 
so, Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure provides that for every decree 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
10
passed by any Court exercising Original jurisdiction, the appeal shall 
lie to the Court authorized to hear appeals arising from such decree. 
As the appellate forum from the decrees passed by the District Courts 
exercising Original Civil jurisdiction or from the decree passed by the 
High Court in its special Civil jurisdiction would be the High Court, 
therefore, a forum of appeal is nevertheless available to the parties. 
 
10. 
 
We may also clarify here that where a claim is not 
relatable to a contract of insurance and for some other reason a 
person sues the insurance company, then obviously the forum 
provided under the Insurance Act, 1938 would have no application to 
such suits. To such suits, the provisions of Section 15 of Code of Civil 
Procedure, where attracted can be applied. Likewise, the forum of 
appeal in cases where the matter is not relatable to the contract of 
insurance would also be the one that is available under the provisions 
of Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of civil court is ousted only 
in cases where the provisions of special law, such as the Insurance 
Act, 1938, are attracted which provide a separate forum for seeking 
legal remedy. 
 
11. 
 
We, therefore, conclude that all claims, whether directly 
arising from or relatable to a contract of insurance are covered under 
the provisions of Section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938. All such suits 
are to be filed in a District Court of competent jurisdiction or 
depending upon the territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary value of the 
suit, in the principal seat of Sindh High Court or the Islamabad High 
Court as the case may be instead of the District Court. However, no 
such suit can be entertained in the Civil Court.   
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3195-L TO 3198-L, 3268-L, 3269-L, 3352-L TO 
3358-L, 3570 TO 3576, 3603, 3604, 3631, 3669 TO 3673 OF 2016 & 
69-L OF 2017 
11
 
12. 
 
In view of what has been discussed above, we find no legal 
error in the impugned judgment. Hence, no case for grant of leave is 
made out. These petitions are therefore dismissed.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the  
28th of March, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram