1988 PLP 1551 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 10 11‑1987 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, South Karachi in Suit No. 1298/87 and the order dated 22‑2‑1988 passed by IV Additional District Judge, South Karachi, in Civil Revision Appeal 19/1988. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of above petition are that respondent No. 1 filed suit under sections 10 and 11 of the Specific Relief Act, inter alia, against the present petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In one of the paras of the plaint it has been averred that the cause of action accrued at Karachi where the containers were delivered. It seems that alongwith the plaint respondent No. 1 also filed an application under section 20 (3), C.P.C. for permission to sue at Karachi on the ground that part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi. The above permission was granted by the above learned Senior Civil Judge vide aforesaid order dated 10‑11‑1987. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed Civil Revision No. 19/88, which was also dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi by aforesaid judgment dated 22‑2‑1988. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above two orders, has filed the present petition. In support of the petition, Mr. S.F. Abdullah has vehemently urged that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have been unnecessarily dragged into litigation at Karachi though the alleged cause of action, if any, accrued at Lahore and, therefore, the suit should have been filed at Lahore. He has further submitted that the learned two courts below have not appreciated he facts and the law. Adverting to the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that section 20 of the C.P.C. permits a plaintiff to institute a suit in a Court where part of cause of action may have accrued. In our view, the question, whether any part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi should not have been decided by the two Courts below without recording evidence on the above issue. It is still open to the petitioner to raise this plea in the written statement. The learned trial Court will decide the question of jurisdiction framing an appropriate issue and after recording the evidence on such an issue. We are inclined to hold that the above observations are sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner and the case is not ft for admission to hearing. With the above observations the petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./M‑574/K Writ petition dismissed.