2009 PLP 1221 (CLD)

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for recovery and permanent injunction against the respondent before the learned Judge Banking Court-I, Lahore. Application for leave to appear and defend the suit was filed by the respondent which was contested by the appellant. However, learned trial Court vide order dated 15-11-2006, allowed the application for leave to defend and simultaneously, framed the following issue:-- "Whether this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPP" After hearing learned counsel for the parties through the same order, learned trial Court returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. This order of return of plaint is being challenged through the instant appeal.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that fact of cause of action having accrued at Lahore is mentioned in Para.5 of the plaint to which the respondent replied to be as a legal and was not factually denied. It is further added that the appellant is not interested to claim the refund of amount of Rs. 10,000 as is mentioned in the plaint, therefore, to the extent of recovery of said amount, the plaintiff wants to withdraw his suit. However, it is maintained that so far as the other prayer with regard to the permanent injunction, the respondent be restrained from causing harassment as the said cause of action has arisen at the residence of the appellant at Lahore.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the contentions by contending that Para.5 of the plaint is not to be read in isolation of para.4, which certainly makes it clear that cause of action had arisen at Rawalpindi and not at Lahore.

4. We have considered the contentions, raised by learned , counsel for the parties.

5. Paras. 4 and 5 of the plaint are reproduced as follows for ready reference:-- (4) That the cause of action accrued on 28.4.2006, when the plaintiff was threatened, harassed by the defendant No.1, when the amount of Rs.10,000 was paid to the defendant. (5) That the cause of action occurred at Lahore, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Para. 4 deals with the actual accrual of the cause of action on 28.4.2006. On the said date, it is pleaded that the appellant-was threatened and harassed by defendant No.1 and an amount of Rs. 10,000 was also paid by the appellant to the said defendant. When this assertion is read with the receipt of payment of Rs.10,000, filed with the plaint, it becomes evident that the said receipt was issued by the Muslim Commercial Bank, Satellite Town Branch, Rawalpindi. The plaintiff has consolidated various causes of action in Para. 4 on 28-4-2006 he was threatened and harassed by defendant No.1 and an amount of Rs. 10,000 was also paid by the plaintiff in consequence of the conduct of the defendant. These various causes are inseparable as they all had occurred at one time and at one place. The place, undoubtedly, is Rawalpindi where the amount was paid by the appellant. Para.5 merely declares that cause of action had occurred at Lahore but this para is in total disagreement with the previous para. .

6. So far as the contention that the appellant wants to withdraw his suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 is concerned, it is also not possible as the causes of action, mentioned in Para.4, are inseparable as they had taken place at one point of time and at the same place. It is not permissible under the law to file two separate suits arising out of the same causes of action before two different Courts. All the causes have to be adjudicated by one and the same Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction etc., therefore, this prayer cannot be allowed.

7. For what has been stated above, we find no merits in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-291/L Appeal dismissed.