1992 PLP 1410 (CLC)

Mr. Alay Maqbool Rizvi the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the proposal for the four insurance policies held by deceased Dhani Bux was filed at Hyderabad. The deposit of the premium for the' proposal of policies was also made at Hyderabad and the claim by the appellants was filed at Hyderabad. As such the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gambat had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjudicate upon the same as no cause of action had accrued to appellants within the territorial jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, Gambat. It is also contended that merely because the appellants/plaintiffs reside at Gambat, it could not be said that they have the cause of action to file the suit at Gambat as the nominees of deceased Dhani Bux. In support of his contention the learned Advocate has placed reliance on Messrs Rahmania Trading Company v. Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Company (PLD 1960 SC 202) and Mian Ghulam Bari v. WAPDA, through its Chairman and 2 others 1991 MLD

313. He has lastly contended, that since appellants had no cause of action to file the suit at Gambat, clause (c) of section 20 of C.P.C., being not available, the appellants' case would be covered by Explanation II to said section which reads: "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 at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." It is contended that since respondents had no office at Gambat, the suit could be filed either at the principal office of respondent or at Hyderabad. He has argued that the plaint was rightly returned to the appellants in these circumstances. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order as well as the case‑law referred. Section 20 of C.P.C. reads: "Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) ....................................... (b) ....................................... (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." To the said section there are two explanations and Explanation 11 reads: "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 at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." Clause (c) of section 20 is not controlled by Explanation 11 which is not relatable to clauses (a) and (b) only. Clause (c) is independent. It is held in 1981 SCMR 494 at page 99: "The conjunction `or' separates all the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section

20. Subject to limitations, pecuniary or otherwise, referred in the earlier provisions of the C.P.C., section 20 contains a general provision embracing all personal actions. The plaintiff has three options thereunder to sue: where the defendant or each of the defendants actually resides or carries on business or personally works for gain (clause `a') or, in case there are more than one defendants, any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain (clause `b) or the place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises (clause `c').. If the situation in a particular case is not covered by clauses (a) and (b), the suit can be instituted by virtue of clause (c) at the place where cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation II covers an uncertainty, if not ambiguity, with regard to the place where a corporation is supposed to carry on business. Its subject obviously is relatable to the phrase `carries on business' (used in clauses (a) and (b). It would be violation to the language of section 20 to apply Explanation 11 to clause (c) whereunder the phrase `carries on business' would have no meaning: Therefore, it would be unjustified to subordinate clause (c) also to Explanation 11". It was thus the option of plaintiffs to file the suit at Gambat, seeking recourse to clause (c) of section

20. The cause of action for filing the suit had accrued to the plaintiffs at Gambat, where deceased was persuaded to get himself insured and 4 policies of Insurance were issued. Merely because documentation took place at Hyderabad, the jurisdiction of Courts at Gambat cannot be said to have been excluded. In 1981 SCMR 494, the case‑law reported in PLD 1960 SC 207 and PLD 1977 Lahore 481 was considered and was held as not applicable. The case‑law referred by the learned Advocate for the respondent 1991 MLD 313 and upheld in PLD 1991 SC 780 lend no support to his case. The appellants/plaintiffs, being the nominees in Insurance policies held by deceased Dhani Bux rightly filed the suit before Senior Civil Judge, Gambat having recourse to clause (c) of section 20, C.P.C. The plaint could not have been returned to appellants for presentation before the proper forum. The suit filed by the appellants shall therefore be deemed to be pending and will be disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gambat expeditiously on its merits. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. AA/G‑290/K Appeal accepted.