P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

The plaintiff consigned 596 bags of rapeseed from Karachi to Chittagong. The goods were carried by defendant No. 1 and were insured with defendant No.

4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the local agents at Chittagong of defendant No.

1. The bags were short delivered and some of them were damaged. There fore, the plaintiff instituted this suit at Chittagong against the above‑mentioned defendants as well as the Federation of Pakistan. The High Court of East Pakistan had, however, taken the view in an appeal that owing to a clause that is also to be found in the agreement of defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff such a suit as the present could not be instituted at Chittagong. The plaint was, therefore, returned to the plaintiff to be submitted to the Court of proper jurisdiction,

2. After the plaint was returned to the plaintiff, he filed it at Karachi. The plaintiff has filed an application under section 20, C. P. C. for leave to sue all the defendants at Karachi. As explained by Mr. Sharifuddin, the application has been made by way of precaution so that doubts and complications may not arise in the future. He has relied on the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan in Tar Muhammad v. Pakistan and others, referred to above, and has referred to the following passage which occurs in it :‑ "Now the cause of action as it means, denotes a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in his suit. It has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a con clusion in his favour. Here there are three defendants in this suit. The plaintiff has his business at Karachi. The goods were loaded at Karachi and carried to Chittagong. The case of the defendants 2 and 3 is that they discharged the entire goods in good condition to the jetty authorities at Chittagong whereas the case of the defendant No. 1 is that there was a short landing and that the, goods were delivered in the condition in which they were made over to the plaintiff's agent at Chittagong. The plaintiff has asked for a decree against all the defendants and in order to determine the liability of the defendants individually and severally, the whole case is to be considered from the shipping of the goods till the consign ments were made over to the agent of the defendants 2 and 3 at Chittagong. Before the plaintiff can succeed, he must prove his whole bundle of facts right from the shipping down to the delivery of the goods. ‑ The plaintiff cannot succeed unless and until he proves the shipping of the goods at Karachi and their discharge at the jetties at Chittagong and then the question of liability of the defendant No. 1 would arise. So the cause of action in the suit against the defendant No. 1 it may be at least partly arises at Karachi". The facts in this case also are that the goods were despatched to be carried by sea from Karachi to Chittagong and were incised to cover risk from Karachi Port to Chittagong Port. In view of the above it is open to the plaintiff to contend that this suit can be instituted against all the .defendants at Karachi on the simple ground that the cause of action, or a part of it, arose here. Complications can be anticipated to arise if reliance were to be placed on that ground alone, because there are other possible points of attack against instituting the suit in Karachi. The application has not been opposed by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 but has been opposed by defendants No. 4 and

5. Mr. Zahidie for the Federation of Pakistan has contended that in view of the judgment of Inamullah, J. in Muhummad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan (1) the application should not be granted. The point (1) P L D 1954 Sind 117 of decision in that case was that the words "resides and carries on business" which appear in section 20, C. P. C. apply to natural persons only, and not to legal entities. That discussion is not relevant here, because section 20 is meant to be utilised for suing those who do not voluntarily reside and carry on business within the jurisdiction of the Court if there are other defendants against whom the suit can be instituted within its jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Sadiq for the Insurance Company has opposed this application on the ground that the company has been improperly impleaded as a defendant in this suit. This objection is not relevant to the decision of the present application because the question whether it should be impleaded as a defendant in this suit or not is different. His main attack was that section 20 was not applicable on the ground that no defendant resided and voluntarily carried on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. I have pointed out above that the Dacca High Court has held on facts similar to the facts of this case that a part of the cause of action arose here. Apart from that, defendant No. 1 obviously resides and carries on business at Karachi. The address of defendant No. 1 was given in the suit instituted at Chittagong to be at Karachi. Mr. Sadiq admitted that his client has its principal office at Karachi, but drew a distinction, as far as his client was concerned, between the existence of the principal office at Karachi without a sub‑office in East Pakistan and with a sub‑office in East Pakistan, but it is not necessary to go into this controversy because, undoubtedly, Karachi is the place of business and residence of defendant No.

1. Section 20, C. P. C. is therefore applicable.

4. The Chittagong Court has returned the plaint, and the view of the High Court of East Pakistan is that such suits cannot be instituted there. The legal objections raised by counsel forA defendants No. 4 and 5 against granting the present application having been determined as above, I accept the application and grant leave to the plaintiff to sue the defendants No. 2 to 5 in this Court. Defendants No. 4 and 5 to pay costs of this application. A. H. Leave granted.