2002 PLP 1835 (SCMR)

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale allegedly executed in their favour by the respondent. The suit was filed in Civil Court at Sargodha alleging in the plaint that apart from Agricultural and Residential Property of the vendor situated in Chakwal she had also agreed through‑ the said agreement to sell her land situated in Sargodha.

2. The suit was contested on merits and also on the ground that the Civil Court at Sargodha lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. After framing of issues and recording evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the agreement of sale enforcement of which was sought by the petitioner no mention had been made about the property situated in Sargodha as such it was found after considering the other evidence also relied upon by the petitioners that execution of any agreement of sale in respect of property situated in. Sargodha had not been proved and the only agreement proved on the record was with regard to property situated at Chakwal, therefore, Civil Court at Sargodha lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Through judgment dated 31‑3‑2000 the plaint was thus returned to the petitioner to present it before proper forum i.e. Civil Court at Chakwal.

4. The petitioner filed appeal before the First Appellate Court which was accepted through judgment dated 31‑3‑2000. The learned first Appellate Court instead of applying the law correctly was influenced by the fact that the suit was pending for the last seven years during which the parties had been litigating about the properties both at Sargodha and Chakwal, therefore, it was a case where properties were situated in both the districts as such the Civil Court at Sargodha was vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reliance was made while arriving at this conclusion on the statement of respondent made in civil proceedings before a Court at Chakwal in which she admitted to have received certain amounts through receipts executed by her and stated that she had no concern with the property subject- matter of the said civil litigation at Chakwal in which she had made the said statement.

5. The civil revision filed by the respondent has been accepted by the learned Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 28‑1‑2002 against which leave has been sought.

6. We have gone through Exh.P.6 which is an application on the basis of which the said civil proceedings were initiated before a Civil Court at Chakwal. It appears from the said document that it was in relation to some orders passed by the Land Commissioner and proceedings were based on Arbitration agreement. Title of the said application also reveals that the petitioner was not impleaded in any capacity in those proceedings. The receipts through which the respondents admitted to have received certain amounts were also produced in this case. A perusal of the same shows that none of the said receipts relatable to the property in Chakwal or at Sargodha as no mention in them has been made about the properties in relation to which the same were executed. In the agreement in question itself which is subject‑matter of this suit property at Chakwal only was allegedly agreed to be sold.

7. The findings of the trial Court that the execution of an agreement relating to any property at Sargodha in this suit had not been proved and only agreement proved or; the record was in respect of properties situated at Chakwal, therefore, the order of return of the plaint was absolutely in accordance with law and did not suffer from any illegality.

8. For the foregoing reasons; this petition is hereby dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑222/S Petition dismissed.