2009 PLP 1305 (YLR)

ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J.--Messrs Zardad and Company, petitioner filed a suit against Government of N.-W.F.P. (C&W) Department and Frontier Highway Authority, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar for declaration and recovery of amount through rendition of accounts. This suit was filed on the allegation that per work orders No.29, dated 25-2-2004 and No.3, dated 30-7-2004 for the year, 2004-2005 the petitioner completed the requisite construction to the entire satisfaction of the respondents/government. However, the payment made to him was according to the rates prescribed for Zone-I whereas he was entitled for payment in accordance with the rates fixed for Zone-III. The petitioner contended that the respondents have divided the Province into different Zones and District Abbottabad comes under Zone-III whereas the rates given to the petitioner are according to Zone-I, which included District Haripur. The petitioner prayed for payment of amount according to the rates prescribed for Zone-III.

2. Respondents/Government when summoned contested the claim of the petitioner by filing application under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C. and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Abbottabad. The learned Civil Judge-VI, Abbottabad, who seized of the case, came to the conclusion that the respondents were actually residing within the local limits of District Peshawar and consequently the cause of action had arisen at Peshawar, therefore, he vide order, dated 22-5-2006 directed for return of the plaint for presentation to the competent Court. Appeal No. 99/13 of 2006 filed against the order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad vide judgment, dated 17-2-2007. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 'cause of action accrued to the petitioner at Abbottabad inasmuch as bulk of construction work was done in Zone-III Abbottabad; that the petitioner received the letters from the respondents at Abbottabad; that the respondents have subordinate offices all over the Province including Abbottabad, therefore, the Civil Courts at Abbottabad had the jurisdiction.

4. Conversely, the DAG assisted by Malik Akhtar Hussain Advocate supported the impugned judgment and urged that the respondents reside and carry on their business for gain at Peshawar and, therefore, the Civil Courts at Abbottabad had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. Arguments heard. Record annexed with the petition perused.

6. The original suit by the petitioner is against the Government of N.-W.F.P. (C&W) Department, Peshawar and Frontier Highway Authority, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar for declaration and recovery of amount through rendition of accounts in respect of construction of a road in Abbottabad. Admittedly, the work done by the petitioner is located in District Abbottabad, therefore, the cause of action in the suit wholly and partly arose in view of section 20(c) C.P.C. at Abbottabad considering that the respondents/Government could not be said to "carry on business or could be said to reside or to work for gain" as the said terms are used with reference to natural person. Reference may be made to PLD 1965 SC 310 and PLD 2003 SC

930. In the circumstances, the contentions of respondents have no merit.

7. In the result, this revision is allowed, the impugned judgments of the two Courts below are set aside and the case remanded to learned Civil Judge-VI, Abbottabad for decision on merits after due notice to the parties in accordance with law. H.B.T./71/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.