1980 PLP 683 (CLC)

This is Civil Revision Petition filed by the Board of Cricket Control Pakistan against the ad interim order of injunction issued by the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in a suit filed by Sind Cricket Association restraining the defendant font selecting a team from Sind and their changing the venue of the match from Hyderabad to Karachi. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff is the controlling body for cricket in Pakistan and the present incumbents in office have been installed by the patron of the Pakistan Sports Board. The petitioner has disaffiliated all the Cricket Associations in Provinces but has been taking work from them as groups without any rights as to affiliation. The petitioner has its head office at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore from where it controls the affairs of Cricket. At the time of the visit of Indian Team to Pakistan, the defendant had selected a team for Sind and for this selection, it had invited one represen tative each of the Cricket Association of Sind, Karachi and P.

1. A. for selecting the team of Sind. No protest bad been made-on this account. The defendant issued a draw for the purpose of holding Quaid-i-Azam Trophy and also issued the rules of the said tournament, where it was said that venue of the match and their dates will be fixed by the B. C. C. P. and will not be changed except with the permission of the Board. The defendant had fixed venue of the match between Sind and Baluchistan at Hyderabad but later on it change the venue from Hyderabad to Karachi. The defendant had also appointed, Mr. Waqar Hassan to appoint a Local Tournament Committee for Karachi and Hyderabad, this was done by letter dated 9-11-19;'8 :,:dressed to all the Provincial Associations. On 17th August, 1978 a clarification about status had been issued by the B. C. C. P. defendant wherein it was clearly clarified to the plaintiff association that all cricket bodies and associations automatically stand defoliated. It was further clarified that any task assignment, if and when given to you (Sind Cricket Association) shall be in your capacity as an individual or group and not repeat not as an affiliated body of B. C. C. P. This clarification stands unchallenged. Nothing untended happened between 9th November, 1978 and 26th Novem ber 1978. On 26-11-1978, the defendant announced the Selection Committee for holding trials and selecting Cricket team for holding Quaid-i-Azam Trophy Tournament and also shifted the venue of the match from Hyderabad to Karachi. The plaintiff did not like, the same as it claimed the right to select players for Sind and to insist that the venue of the match between Sind and Baluchistan shall not be changed. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to hold a trial of Sind players for their selection to represent Sind in Quaid-i-Azam Trophy and that the defendant has no right to interfere with the holding of trials and it be declared that the action of the defendant is illegal and defendant be restrained from the selection of the cricket team of Sind, and the defendant be permanently restrained from interfering with the holding of trials and selection of the cricket team. It may be mentioned here that there was no prayer in the suit for restraining the defendant from changing the venue of the match.- It was alleged that the plaintiff sent telegram to the defendant; petitioner for redress of the grievance, but the petitioner did not listen to the same and hence the suit was filed. The petitioner/defendant had invited 31 cricket players from Sind to report for trials, taking place from 27-11-1978 and 29-11-1978. The conten tion of the plaintiff/respondent was that since all the Provincial Associations have been allowed by the defendant/petitioner to select their own players it was the right of the Sind Cricket Association to select the team for Sind and the petitioner /defendant could not interfere with the same. Ad interim injunction was sought for and was granted on 28-11-1978, by the learned Civil Judge. Mr. Waqar Hassan filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the defendant/ petitioner in the above suit on the 18th day of December, 1978, and he challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to entertain the suit on the basis that the defendant was neither residing at Hyderabad nor doing any business at Hyderabad and that the suit was mala fide filed at Hyderabad to harrass the applicant, because even the plaintiff/respondent was having its registered office at Karachi. It was further averred that the plaintiff had no vested right to select Sind Cricket team or bold trial and that the trials had been held on 27th, 28th and 29th November,.1978 before the service of ad .interim injunction, and that the match between Baluchistan and Sind was Scheduled to be staged on 1-12-1978. It was asserted that the ad interim injunction will harm the interests of Cricket players. It was further averred that there was another rival Sind Cricket Association which claimed to be in existence since 1972, and which was recognised previously and the two rival associations are making inconsistent and absurd claims. It was denied in that affidavit that the punjab Association had made the selection of Pun jab Team. In the end it was prayed that the ex parte ad interim injunction be vacated. The objections have not been disposed of. In the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent on 28-11-1978, it was alleged that plaintiff was preparing to bold trials to select team for Sind for participation in the Quaid-i-Azam Trophy Tournament. But, it bad not been alleged that it had invited any player for trials or that it had even appointed a selection team for the purpose. But after obtaining the ad interim: order the plaintiff/respondent association announced the names of players for the team of Sind In newspapers. How it was done one does not know. The name of the team were published in newspaper Jasarat on 1st of November, 1978. It seems that the plaintiff/respondent had made no preparation for selection of the team for Sind and had risen up from its slumber only on 26-11-1978, when the petitioner/defendant invited players for trials and announced the names of the selection committee without including even a single person from this body in the committee. The respondent had done nothing till 28th of November, 1978 when it filed ~ the suit in question to select a team for Sind and it was probably quite content to play a secondary role. If the match was to be played on Ist December, 1978 then plaintiff/respondent, if it was really genuine in its claim, should have made serious preparations for selection of the team but it had done nothing. It was therefore unjust on its part to claim on 28th of November, 1978, that the plaintiff/ respondent should be allowed to select the players for Sind. I am however not deciding about the claim of the plaintiff/respondent to select players for Sind and it seems that this matter requires a serious probe and can be decided only when the suit is ultimately decided, I am only saying that the claim made on 28-11-1978 for selecting a team which was to play the match on Ist December, 1978 was rather made at too late a stage. Moreover, the plaintiff/responder having acquiesced in the selection of the players of Sind by the petitioner defendant itself for the match against Indian Cricket team, and further the fact that the plaintiff-respondent had not challenged their disaffiliation by the letter of 17-8-1978, should that they had reconciled themselves to the same and thereafter it was rather inconsistent on their part to challenge the right of the petitioner/defendant in the end of November, 1978. However, the most important aspect of the case is that the petitioner/ defendant has its office in Lahore and even plaintiff/respondent has its own' office at Karachi and even Mr. Waqar Hassan, the member of the Committee of the defendant/petitioner has his office at Karachi only and whatever had taken place was at Karachi and hence it cannot be said that) any cause of action had arisen at Hydetabad and hence the Court at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Mr. Qazi, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that since the match bad been announced to be played at Hyderabad but, later on the vanue was changed by the petitioner/defendant from Hyderabad to Karachi, therefore, the cause of action had arisen at Hyderabed. I am however unable to appreciate his contention as mere fixation of the venue of a particular match at Hyderabad and later on its shifting from Hyderabad to Karachi would not show that cause of action has arisen at Hyderabad and the Court at Hyderabad has all jurisdiction to try the suit. It was not a question of a contract which wale to be performed at Hyderabad and was alleged to be brea;hed at Hyderabad. If the match had been played at Hyderabad and some thing was done by the petitioner/defendant in respect of that match in Hyderabad against which somebody had felt aggrieved then it could be said that in view of that parti cular action the Court in Hyderabad would be competent to try the suit. But in the present case before us no such allegation had been made and nothing bad happened at Hyderabad and merely the change of venue from Hyderabad to Karachi does not amount to any cause of action taking place at Hyderabad. I may also add here that the fixing of venue according to the rules of the tournament is within exclusive competence of the petitioner alone and rule 6 of the tournament to which reference was made by Mr. Qazi clearly shows that it is the petitioner who has the right to fix the venue of the match in their absolute discretion and no other association and individual had right to change same except with the permission of the petitioner. It is therefore within the exclusive privilege of the petitioner to fix and change the venue of the matches and it had done no illegality in changing the venue of the match. I am therefore of the view that the Senior Civil Judge at Hyderabad, bad no jurisdiction to try the suit. Mr. Qazi has contended that the alternate remedy of appeal before the District Judge had not been availed of and therefore this Court should not entertain the revision particularly when the matter was at the ad interim stage. Mr. Qazi had relied upon P L D 1970 S C 506, where it was held that a Revision was not maintainable if appeal was competent. On the other hand Mr. Muzaffar has relied upon P L D 1975 S C 678 (695) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the rule as follows "where an alternate remedy by way of appeal, suit is available the High Court would not ordinarily interfere in Revision. But., it is not an inflexible rule and in appropriate case the High Court can interfere in Revision under section 115, C. P. C. and may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Scope of power under section 115, C. P. C. corresponds to remedy cf certiorari and in fact goes beyond Mr. Muzaffar further relied upon P L D 1975 Kar. 26 where it was held that a decision is void where Court asperities jurisdiction when none exists and High Court can set aside the order under section 115, C. P. C. I would therefore respectfully follow the view of P L D 1975 S C 678 as I feel that in this case, the circumstances are such that High Court should interfere even at the an interim stage as there is a complete lack of jurisdiction in the Court at Hyderabad and. also lack of bona fides in making the application for injunc tion at late stage of 28-11-1978, when the team was to play on 1-12-1978 and in view of the fact that plaintiff had not challenged disaffiliation since 17-8-1978, and also because since the question of jurisdiction had been raised the suit should have been fixed for early bearing in view of the urgent nature of the matter. I would therefore accept this revision application, vacate the Ad interim injunction issued on 28-11-1978 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction. This order was announced by me on 4-1-1979 orally and these are reasons for the same: There will be no order as to costs, as I am of the opinion that the plaintiff had some legitimate grievance of being ignored completely by the defendant petitioner but they had chosen a wrong forum. It would be in the better interest of the game of cricket if the petitioner/defendant seek willing co-operation of the plaintiff/respondent and brings about re rapprochement between various conflicting bodies of cricket in Sind. K. M. A. Petition allowed.