2002 PLP 3349 (YLR)

This revision petition impugns the order dated 11‑11‑1999 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby the objection of the defendant/petitioner regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Haroon Brothers filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 26‑3‑1999 and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,39,29,701 against Bayindir Construction Inc. a Contractors Company, defendant/petitioner. It was asserted by the respondent/plaintiff M/s Haroon Brothers that the agreement was executed at Lahore and the goods were also delivered from Lahore and on the principle 'the debtor must seek creditor' the Court of Lahore was competent to try the suit. On the other hand, case of the petitioner/defendant was that the contract between the parties with regard to Motorway I was from Peshawar to Islamabad. The main office of defendant No.1 petitioner is at Islamabad while its sub‑offices are at Risalpur and Hassan Abdal and that receipts after receiving the goods were also to be issued from Hassan Abadal and Risalpur where the goods were supposed to be supplied, therefore, the Courts at Lahore have no jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. The learned Civil Judge proceeded to dispose of the objection raised by the petitioner/defendant vide the impugned order dated 11‑11‑1999 by observing that:‑-- "In view of section 20(c) a suit is to be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. So, the question, which is very pertinent, is that whether any cause of action as a whole or in part accrued to the plaintiff at Lahore in the case in hand or not. The answer is definitely `yes'."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has reiterated the arguments, which were addressed before the trial Court and to substantiate his arguments he has relied on section 20, C.P.C. and the cases reported as Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1986 C.L.C. 2173), Waqar Ahmad Malik v. The Commandant Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi Cantt, and others (PLD 1991 Pesh.130) WAPDA and 2 others v. Mian Ghulam Bari (PLD 1991 SC 780), Fateh Khan v. Boze Mir (PLD 1991 SC 782) and Sant Lal v. Firm Seth Jot Ram Kidar Nath through Seth Pana Lal (AIR 1940 Lahore 171).

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has reiterated the arguments as raised before the trial Court and has placed reliance on the case reported as Muhammad Yasin and 2 others v. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Aziz (PLD 1993 SC 395).

6. To resolve the controversy between the parties, provisions of section 20, C.P.C. are relevant which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "

20. Other suit to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.‑‑‑Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction‑‑‑ (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides: or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business. or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution: or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I. Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also temporarily residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of cause of any action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. Explanation II. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in Pakistan or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." A perusal of the plaint, filed by the respondent/plaintiff In the Court of Civil Judge. Lahore would show that an effort to give colourful jurisdiction to the Civil Judge was made by an unsuccessful attempt. The plaint would show that the petitioner/defendant has been impleaded as defendant as under:

"Bayinder Construction Inc. a contractors company, having its head office in Turkey presently at 188‑Gomal Road, E/7, Islamabad through its General Manager.'" A bare reading of section 20, C.P.C. would show that the institution of the suit at the places where defendant, or each of them when they are more defendants In a suit at the time of tiling the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The word 'resides' has to be taken to refer to natural persons because the word denotes living of person where he dwells sleeps and eats therefore, It shall be taken to refer is the natural persons and not to legal entity such as Government, Companies or Firms. The word 'carries on business' as used in section 20, C.P.C, apply to commercial concern, which has its principal office at one place and branches at various places, but all of those to do business for profit. The words 'carries on business' neither apply to the natural person nor to the Government. The word 'works' has been qualified with the word 'gain', therefore, It also refers to those persons, who on their free will work to earn gains and it excludes those who work to promote the interest of others and are not entitled to share the return of their labour. In the case reported In AIR 1927 Mad 689, word 'resides' in section 20, C.P.C. has been interpreted to refer to only natural person and not to legal entity, such as Limited Company. Firm and Government, and further the word 'business in the said case is commercial one and not of the business of the private individuals or the Government, So far as the word 'resides' is concerned, it is the natural person under this section in which the words used are 'actually and voluntarily resides'. In case reported as Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan (1986 CLC 2173) referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while interpreting section 20, C.P.C, the words 'resides', 'carries on business'. 'works' and 'gain' have been interpreted and it has been held that the word 'reside`' is referable to natural person, whereas the words 'carries on business' are applicable to the business concerns, i.e. companies etc. The case of Muhammad Yasin and 2 others (PLO 1993 SC, 395) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because it was a suit for recovery of about 1‑1/2 lacs as price of coal supply which was pending adjudication before a learned Additional District Judge: Quetta and It was the matter between two individuals and no commercial firm or company was having agreement, therefore, the above referred case is not applicable to the present case. Reverting to the plaint, it is manifestly clear that no cause of action or any part of it has been alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent which gives the jurisdiction to the Civil Court at Lahore. The word or occurring in between the words 'resides' and 'carries on business' or 'personally works for gain' are not conjunctive. The word 'or' has been defined I in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as under:‑‑ "'Or' introducing the second of two alternatives (white or black), introducing all but the first or only the last, of any number of alternative` (white or grey or black)." For what has been discussed above, it is hold that the learned Civil Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of section 20, C. P. C. and therefore, has committed illegality in observing that the Court at Lahore has jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 11‑11-1999 of the Civil Judge, Lahore is set aside and it is ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff/respondent for presentation before the proper Court of jurisdiction. Parties to bear, their own costs. H.B.T./B‑78/L Revision petition allowed.