2024 PLP 2020 (CLC)
Messrs POPULAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., through CEO — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ETISALAT GROUP through Chief Executive Officer — Defendant
| Citation | 2024 PLP 2020 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs POPULAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., through CEO — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ETISALAT GROUP through Chief Executive Officer — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 2020 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 2020 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 2020 (CLC) (Messrs POPULAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., through CEO — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ETISALAT GROUP through Chief Executive Officer — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R. 10
Scope
Plaintiff (private limited company incorporated in Pakistan) filed suit for damages against the defendant which was a telecommunications company based in the United Arab Emirates
Claim of the plaintiff's Chief Executive Officer was that he was arrested when he landed at Dubai Airport due to a criminal case registered for fraudulent misuse of a SIM card issued by the defendant
Defendant filed an application under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Suit was misconceived, for having been brought in the name of the wrong plaintiff as the cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the Chief Executive Officer in his individual capacity rather than the company, and that too beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court
Application under O.VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the defendant, was allowed, in circumstances, and the original plaint was returned.
Judgment & Decree
YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.
The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated in Pakistan, whereas the Defendant is a telecommunications company based in the United Arab Emirates.
2. The Suit is one for damages, and has been brought on the averment that the Plaintiff's chief executive officer was arrested when he landed at Dubai airport in the month of January 2020 (the exact date has not been specified), with it then coming to the fore that such action had been taken due to a criminal case that had been registered for fraudulent misuse of a SIM card issued by the Defendant against his passport at a point in time when the holder had not been in the UAE, and it being said that the issuance of the SIM was a wrongful act on the part of the Defendant, for which that individual unnecessarily had to face trial over a period three months, eventually culminating in his acquittal (again, with no case number or dates have been mentioned).
3. Under the given circumstances, it is apparent that the Suit is as misconceived as can possibly be, having been brought in the name of the wrong plaintiff in as much as the cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the chief executive officer in his individual capacity rather than the company, and that too beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Responding to C.M.A. No.3848/23 filed by the Defendant under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C., the only arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Plaintiff were that such Application was not maintainable as it had been filed without proper authorization and that this Court had jurisdiction as the Defendant held a significant shareholding in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
5. Both those arguments are completely devoid of force as the point of jurisdiction is one to be looked into by the Court of its own accord and as the shareholding of the Defendant in another company incorporated in Pakistan is of absolutely no relevance from the jurisdictional standpoint.
6. In view of the foregoing, the listed Application stands allowed. Let the original Plaint be returned, with a copy being retained in the Court file. MQ/P-7/Sindh Application allowed.