1997 PLP 686 (CLC)

Mr. M. Anwar Channa for appellant and Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro on behalf of Add1.A.‑G. have been heard at length. Mr. Channa contends that both the Courts have erred in holding that they had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of appellant. He vehemently urges that appellant was competent to file suit at Jacobabad as it was Jacobabad Zone of Osta Muhammad Project where appellant was lastly posted, therefore, the cause of action arose there to file the suit. He lastly argues that in view of section 19 of C.P.C. appellant was justified to file suit at Jacobabad. On the other hand, Mr. Shoro strenuously opposes the contentions of appellant's counsel and states that learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Jacobabad has passed a proper order and there is no illegality or ambiguity in the said order. It is rightly held by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad that the cause of action to file suit will either arise at Lahore where defendants reside or carry on their business or will arise at Osta Muhammad the sub‑office of respondents where appellant misappropriated wheat and he received order of termination. For proper appraisal about the cause of action it is essential to reproduce section 20, C.P.C.

20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction‑‑ "(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit; actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I.‑‑Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. Explanation II.‑‑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 arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." In this matter the cause of action, wholly or in part has either arisen at Lahore where respondents Nos. l . and 2 actually reside and carry on business in an established corporation or at wheat procurement project Osta Muhammad (Balochistan) Jacobabad Zone where appellant committed shortage of wheat of 3000 bags at Ali Abad Centre the sub‑office of the above corporation. Explanation‑II of section 20, C.P.C. is elaborative on this point. The appellant in his entire suit has not mentioned that the above procurement centre had any office at Jacobabad or any business of procurement of wheat was ever done at Jacobabad. He has simply mentioned that cause of action accrued to him on 18‑3‑1996 at his residence village Radhan Taluka Mehar where he received the order of termination. In case of Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1986 CLC 2173) the words "Territorial jurisdiction", "institution of suit‑‑requirements‑‑suit" and words "resides", "carries on business", "works" and "gain" are elaborately discussed. For the above reasons I am of the view that the Court below has taken I view of the matter properly and there is not any justification to interfere with it's opinion. This C. Misc. A. No. 6 of 1996 is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith pending applications. A.A./I/6/K Appeal dismissed.