Return of plaint

Once a plaint is returned under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., a litigant has option to either file the same before proper forum or institute new suit.

Plaintiff (private limited company incorporated in Pakistan) filed suit for damages against the defendant which was a telecommunications company based in the United Arab Emirates

Claim of the plaintiff's Chief Executive Officer was that he was arrested when he landed at Dubai Airport due to a criminal case registered for fraudulent misuse of a SIM card issued by the defendant

Defendant filed an application under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Validity

Suit was misconceived, for having been brought in the name of the wrong plaintiff as the cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the Chief Executive Officer in his individual capacity rather than the company, and that too beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court

Application under O.VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the defendant, was allowed, in circumstances, and the original plaint was returned.

Loan advanced by bank to its employee was finance falling within statutory definition of "finance" under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

It was prerogative of Banking Court to determine whether or not heads of claims which defendant / employee alleged to fall outside the scope of finance, actually did

Such judicial determination of what heads of claim constituted "finance" had been mandated by the Legislature to be determined by Banking Court alone and not High Court exercising its original civil jurisdiction (under general civil law)

Division Bench of High Court retuned plaint to plaintiff / bank to enable it to avail jurisdiction of Banking Court under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Plaintiff (private limited company incorporated in Pakistan) filed suit for damages against the defendant which was a telecommunications company based in the United Arab Emirates

Claim of the plaintiff's Chief Executive Officer was that he was arrested when he landed at Dubai Airport due to a criminal case registered for fraudulent misuse of a SIM card issued by the defendant

Defendant filed an application under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Validity

Suit was misconceived, for having been brought in the name of the wrong plaintiff as the cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the Chief Executive Officer in his individual capacity rather than the company, and that too beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court

Application under O.VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the defendant, was allowed, in circumstances, and the original plaint was returned.

Provision of S. 126 of Companies Act, 2017, only pertains to rectification for any fraudulent entry or omission of name of any person in the register of members or if default or unnecessary delay is made in entering the fact of a person having become or ceasing to be a member thereof

No allegation was made in the suit to be covered under S.126 of Companies Act, 2017

Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted only in respect of suits or proceedings which involved a matter which the Court under S.5 of Companies Act, 2017, is empowered to determine

Controversy between the parties involved dispute regarding agreement for sale of shares by respondents / defendants appellant / plaintiff due to which appellant / plaintiff was seeking specific performance of subject agreement

There is no provision in Companies Act, 2017, which can empower Company Court to exercise jurisdiction in respect of disputes between parties to a share purchase agreement

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under S. 5 of Companies Act, 2017, is not barred in respect of such disputes

Enforcement of a contract for sale/purchase of shares is covered under Specific Relief Act, 1877

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and application filed by respondents / defendant were dismissed

High Court directed Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff Bank was aggrieved of order passed by Banking Court returning its plaint to be filed before proper forum on the basis of a clause in finance agreement pertaining to jurisdiction

Validity

Parties by their agreement or consent could not invest Court with a jurisdiction where it did not exist in law nor could the parties divest a Court of its jurisdiction by such methodology

Where more than one Courts had jurisdiction in the matter, the parties could make choice by their agreement or consent for conferment of jurisdiction upon one Court to the exclusion of other and agreement in such behalf in normal circumstances was binding upon parties thereto

Such choice of forum by agreement was not contrary to the mandate of S. 28 of Contract Act, 1872

Condition precedent to make a choice by parties through an agreement was that the Court or Tribunal so chosen had the jurisdiction under law

Nature of jurisdiction agreed to between parties was to be decided by Court on true interpretation of the contract on the facts and in circumstances of the case

Banking Court not only misconceived / ignored distinction between such categories of forum selection clauses but also straight away ordered return of plaint without deliberating upon the same and without making any effort to ascertain real intent of parties under non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement

High Court set aside the order returning plaint to plaintiff bank and matter was remanded to Banking Court to decide the suit in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Cheque was returned by the Bank at District KM and the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was also filed before the Additional Sessions Judge at District KM

Legal notice was served upon the Bank at District KM, hence for all intents and purposes the cause if at all triggered was within the local limits of District KM and the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction

Plaint was returned to the plaintiff to enable him to avail the remedy before the Court having jurisdiction.

Pursuant to enquiry proceedings, the plaintiff had "surrendered" before the enquiry committee whereby enquiry was conducted and the enquiry was admittedly beyond the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the High Court and hence the ultimate order

All the defendants arrayed in the memo of plaint hailed from District 'L'

Jurisdiction could not be conferred on mere desire of the plaintiff who claimed to have received the information of his dismissal at District 'K', where he resided

It was the ultimate cause which gave birth to a jurisdiction under normal circumstances and that was dismissal at District 'L' where he surrendered

Since the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the plaint was returned with the observation that the plaintiff might pursue his remedy before the court/forum having jurisdiction.

Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted

If the Court is of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is not open to that Court to dismiss the suit on that account, but the Court is required to proceed under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court and on returning a plaint, the Judge must endorse the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, with a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.

Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted

If the Court is of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is not open to that Court to dismiss the suit on that account, but the Court is required to proceed under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court and on returning a plaint, the Judge must endorse the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, with a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.

Courts have inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of their own jurisdiction with respect to a specific matter and jurisdiction of a Court is initially determined by the pleadings of the parties

If the Court reaches upon the conclusion that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the lis before it, the Court should return the plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. because decision will have a binding force only when same is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir and Swat) Regulations, 1972 (Martial Law Regulations No. 123 dated 12-04-1972), Paras. 3(1)(a)(b)(c) & 5-A

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54

Suit for declaration and injunction

Jurisdiction

Return of plaint

Petitioners / plaintiffs claimed suit properties to be their ancestral properties or purchased by them

Properties in dispute were recorded in the name of Land Commission, who was custodian of properties of ex-rulers of Swat or their legal heirs

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently returned plaints to petitioners / plaintiffs for want of jurisdiction

Validity

Petitioners / plaintiffs claimed their ownership of properties, which was basically owned by ex-rulers, so such disputes were disputes falling within the scope of para 3 of Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir and Swat) Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No.123 dated 12-04-1972)

Such disputes were to be determined by specifically authorized person by Provincial Government in such behalf under para 5-A of Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir and Swat) Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 123 dated 12-04-1972)

Any court or other authority had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such disputes under Para 3 (3) of Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir and Swat) Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 123 dated 12-04-1972)

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as Civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of Court was neither dependent upon wishes of parties nor consent of two or more could control such subject

Jurisdiction was always subject to Constitution or any other law relating to such question

Court could exercise any jurisdiction in any matter brought before it until and unless such jurisdiction was conferred upon it by the Constitution itself or under any law

If case fell squarely within meaning of S.16(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Court was not left with any discretion but to return the plaint for its presentation before the Court within whose jurisdiction property was situated

Execution of document at place "K" did not justify the plea that High Court had jurisdiction

Plaintiff was directly claiming rights and interest in immovable property situated at place "T"

Plaintiff did not challenge the document or its legality so executed at place "K" but had sought determination of his rights and interest in immovable property

Subject matter of both the two suits was the same and both the suits had already been consolidated by High Court

Suits were not maintainable before High Court and were liable to be returned for their presentation before the Court within whose local territorial jurisdiction the property was situated

High Court returned the plaints to plaintiffs who could file the same in the Court having jurisdiction

Plaint was returned in circumstances.

Defendant authorities sought return of plaint to be filed in Court at place "I" having territorial jurisdiction over the matter

Validity

In addition to averments and prayer made in plaint, Court had to see dominant object of filing of suit

Facts relating of original interfered spectrum band, consequences of alleged interference therein, grant of additional frequency spectrum band F-7 and decision of Federal Government to withdraw additional spectrum F-7, pleaded in plaint were to be examined collectively for determining cause of action and places of its accrual

Such examination of averments and prayer made in plaint showed that cause of action alleged therein had accrued all across the country including place "K"

Institution of suit before High Court as place "K" was justified under S.20(c), C.P.C.

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Retailer's right of access to and use of petrol station was in the nature of a contractual license derived under and owing its existence to franchise agreement which did not exist in its own right

Franchise was granted for limited purpose of performance of franchise agreement in order to make lawful access to land on which petrol station was constructed which in absence of such a license would constituted trespass

Relief sought in plaintiff's suit could be entirely obtained through obedience of defendant company having offices in both places "K" and "I"

Even if the subject matter of suit was immovable property, the Courts at both "K" and "I" would have jurisdiction

Open to parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction on either of them which they did and to which they were bound

High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Dispute was with regard to cancellation of licence to use PHATTA (platform), allotted to plaintiff / petitioner by Market Committee

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court returned the suit to plaintiff / petitioner for want of jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be deemed to be barred

Civil Court retained jurisdiction to examine acts and orders of Market Committee with a view to satisfy if the same were in conformity with the statute under which it was passed, to see if the authority had acted in accordance with the provisions of statute or beyond its scope

Provision under R.76 of Punjab Agriculture Market Committee Rules, 1979, providing a remedy of appeal did not apply to the situation or the order as agitated in the suit

Civil Court was not debarred from taking cognizance and examine the matter as a court of plenary jurisdiction to determine if the orders under challenge were without jurisdiction or in accordance or inconformity with the statute and if the authority had not acted without lawful authority

High Court remanded the matter to Civil Court as its jurisdiction was not barred and plaint could not have been returned to plaintiff / petitioner

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Whenever a challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the Court, such Court is obliged to decide the matter of its jurisdiction first by taking into account all the relevant facts

However, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of their own jurisdiction with respect to a specific matter and jurisdiction of a Court is initially determined by the pleadings of the parties

If the Court reaches upon the conclusion that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the lis before it, the Court should return the plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., because decision will have a binding force only when the same is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Appellant challenged the order of Gas Utility Court whereby plaint in the appellant's suit was returned with observation that the property was not situated within its territorial jurisdiction

Validity

Facts which had nexus with the lis had all arisen in district 'L', which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court

Appellant was situated within the precincts of district 'L' which fact was established from its official address, duly mentioned on the tariff bill issued by respondent

For all intents and purposes, the appellant i.e. "consumer" of the Gas Company was situated within the precincts of district 'L'

Appeal was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Gas Utility Court at district 'L' to decide the same on merits.

Jurisdiction of Banking Court to entertain suits relating to "finance" as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Plaintiff impugned order of Banking Court whereby plaint of plaintiff was returned by Banking Court on ground that suit in the matter should be filed before Insurance Tribunal

Contention of plaintiff/appellant, inter alia, was that suit was contested by defendant and leave to application was filed, therefore Banking Court could not pass impugned order for return of plaint before decision on application on for leave to defend

Validity

Admitted fact that basis on which suit was filed related to "finance" as defined by S. 2(f) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Without decision on leave application, plaint of appellant could not be returned by Banking Court, and impugned order was therefore an error in law

Impugned order was set aside, and Banking Court was directed to pass decision on application for leave to defend

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a Foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in Foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the proper course is to return the plaint for its presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the proper course is to return the plaint for its presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a Foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in Foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S.4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the proper course is to return the plaint for its presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Parties entered into an agreement for services and statement of work and in contract, added arbitration clause for dispute resolution with laws and arbitration to be done according to laws of a foreign State

Plaintiff company, upon dispute and termination of contract, filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant company

Trial Court returned the plaint on ground that dispute resolution was already available in contract

Plea raised by defendant company was that courts in foreign State had imposed injunction against filing of suits in the matter

Validity

Matters pertaining to injunctive relief were not covered by arbitration clause there was no gamesmanship or bad faith in defendant company invoking jurisdiction of superior court of State of California in order to obtain injunction

Defendant company did not act in the manner inconsistent with arbitration clause of agreement or waived, relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate

Defendant company was well within its rights to have sought stay of proceedings in suit instituted by plaintiff company before Trial Court in Pakistan

Valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant company and plaintiff company in its suit raised claim arising from and related to agreement

Impleadment of strangers to arbitration agreement in suit posed no impediment in staying proceedings in suit as against defendant company under S. 4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court rejecting plaint and allowed application of defendant company under S. 4 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Appellant Bank filed suit against respondents for non-payment/clearance of pending bills but the plaint was returned by Banking Court for lack of jurisdiction

Validity

No statement of account of respondent company was attached to show credit of amounts, pursuant to discounting/ negotiation

Mere showing details of drawee could not establish/prove factum of grant of financing by way of discounting/negotiation

Bank had not pleaded that discounting facility was allowed or extended to respondents

Existence/grant of finance facility to respondents was conspicuous by its absence, which alone denuded Banking Court of any jurisdiction under the law

Bill discounted or purchased constituted finance which overt transaction was lacking in the case

No document was available on record to show that any finance facility, fund or non-fund based, was ever allowed or extended to respondent which disentitled the Bank from invoking jurisdiction under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

No claim could be raised against customer merely on basis of execution of bills of exchange and/or alleged endorsement thereupon by way of acceptance for payment before Banking Court unless it was established that any finance was extended and default in performance of an obligation to repay was committed which essential ingredient was found missing in claim raised by Bank

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Banking Court whereby plaint was ordered to be returned to be presented before court of competent jurisdiction in wake of lack of requisite jurisdiction of Banking Court to entertain and adjudicate upon claim of bank against respondent

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Such claim was dependent upon existence or otherwise of such finance/loan therefore, within meaning of S. 4 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finance) Act, 1997, jurisdiction of ordinary civil court was barred

Ordinary civil court had no jurisdiction to try suit as jurisdiction lay exclusively with Banking Court

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both courts below and suit filed by plaintiff was deemed to be pending before Trial Court

High Court directed Trial Court to return plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. for want of jurisdiction for presenting same before Banking Court having jurisdiction as per law

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Power of High Court of Sindh at Karachi under O.XLIX, R. 3 C.P.C. was not taken away to return a plaint under O.VII, R. 10 C.P.C. if it did not have territorial jurisdiction

Only if a suit in respect of immovable property was capable of being instituted within territorial jurisdiction of civil court at Karachi pursuant to S.16, C.P.C. would S.120, C.P.C. be triggered as regards High Court at Karachi when dealing with civil suits falling within its pecuniary jurisdiction

Provision of S.16 C.P.C. was not only a threshold section for conferment of jurisdiction to courts in Pakistan but it was portal through which plaintiff had to enter for purposes of entering into city of jurisdiction of different courts in Pakistan

Suit was not maintainable within territorial jurisdiction of High Court at Karachi and it should have been instituted before civil court at Thatta having jurisdiction

Plaint was returned in circumstances.

Defendant company sought return of plaint on grounds that courts situated in Pakistan did not have jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Upholding sanctity of contractual bargain was pivotal

Court was to give effect to 'exclusive' jurisdiction clauses unless plaintiff was able to discharge heavy burden of satisfying court that circumstances existed, not foreseen at time of execution of contract containing such a clause, that proceedings be allowed in a non-contractual forum

Plain language of 'forum selection clause' was precise, unambiguous and clear and there was no doubt that parties had intended jurisdiction of English courts to be 'exclusive'

Clause covered adjudication of grievances or cause of action disclosed and asserted in plaint

Refusal of instant application would tantamount to enable plaintiff to circumvent binding obligation, which it had undertaken at time of accepting two process letters including forum selection clause contained therein

Parties had also chosen English law as governing law and plaintiff had not raised any ground so as to justify refusal in giving effect to exclusive jurisdiction clause

Plaintiff had accepted exclusive forum selection clause voluntarily and out of free will

High Court allowed application under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. as it was just and proper to give effect to exclusive clause contained in respective process letters

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Plea raised by plaintiff was that High Court at "Karachi" had original civil jurisdiction for the entire Province, therefore, it could assume jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Original jurisdiction in civil suits and proceedings vested in a District Judge without any pecuniary limit, except in Karachi Districts, where jurisdiction in civil suits exceeding Rupees 15 million was exercised by the High Court

Jurisdiction in civil suits, exercised by High Court Karachi was neither original civil jurisdiction nor extraordinary civil jurisdiction as referred to in S. 120 & O. XLIX R. 3(1), C.P.C.

High Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as property was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of High Court

Provisions of S. 120 & O. XLIX, R. 3(1), C.P.C. did not in any manner curtail or restrict jurisdiction and powers of High Court

Plaint was returned in circumstances.

Matters falling within meaning of S.16 (a), (b), (d) to (f), C.P.C. could not be filed in the Court at any other place except within the local limits of whose jurisdiction property was situated

Discretion/choice had been given to the plaintiff with regard to the matter falling within the meaning of S.16 (c), C.P.C.

Relief claimed, in the present suit and its nature, fell within the purview of S. 16, C.P.C.

Such kind of suit was to be instituted in the Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situated

Original jurisdiction of High Court (Sindh) could not be extended to entire Province of Sindh irrespective of the fact that property in question was situated at Karachi or not

Original jurisdiction of High Court (Sindh) with regard to immovable property was only limited and confined to the districts of Karachi

Reliefs claimed in the present suit were with regard to immovable property situated in district 'A' and 'B' beyond territorial jurisdiction of district 'C'

High Court observed that present suit should have been instituted where the property was situated

Trial Court had rightly held that suit was not maintainable at place 'C'

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court without granting leave to defend the suit to defendant company, returned the plaint to be filed before proper court

Validity

Trial Court without deciding application for leave to appear and defend the suit, could not return the plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. for its presentation before an appropriate forum

High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and remanded the case for decision afresh on application of defendant seeking leave to appear and defend the suit

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Order to 'return of plaint' is not an order by exercising jurisdiction in a case where Court is not competent to try the same, it is a declaration to the effect that suit is triable by some other Court which is in existence.

Proceedings of court without pecuniary jurisdiction not judicial proceedings, and evidence taken in such proceedings could not be used in retrial

Plaint had been returned for presentation thereof before the court having (pecuniary) jurisdiction

Plaint, having been returned, the suit, for all intent and purposes, was to be treated as a fresh suit and not merely a continuation of the old proceedings in the former suit

Plaintiff was not barred from filing a fresh suit

In the present case, the court having no pecuniary jurisdiction had transferred the suit to competent court instead of returning the plaint as provided under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C.

Such order of transferring the suit to a competent court, was a nullity.

Petition for return of plaint was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff/legal heirs of deceased filed suit for recovery under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 claiming compensation for death of the deceased caused due to injuries for negligence of defendants

Trial court, having framed issues on merits and decided single issue as to jurisdiction of the court, returned plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. on ground that the suit was barred under S. 19 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

Validity

Question of jurisdiction was to be dealt with at inception stage of suit, but once issues had been framed, judgment had to conform to mandatory requirement of O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C., that was court had to give its finding or decision on each separate issue with reasons

Issue as to whether deceased was employee of defendant had close nexus with issue as to jurisdiction of court, which ultimately was to be decided by civil court

Findings of Trial Court were in violation of O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C.

Impugned order of Trial Court was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh on all issues

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Subject matter of case was within territorial jurisdiction of place "M", whereas plaintiff instituted suit in Civil Court at place "L", which court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Trial Court instead of passing ad-interim injunction, while entertaining the suit, should have returned the plaint for its presentation before proper forum for adjudication in accordance with law.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration, possession, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction before High Court challenging agreement to sell entered into with defendants

Defendants filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. to challenge maintainability of present suit on ground that subject-matter property was situated out of territorial jurisdiction of court

Contention raised by plaintiff was that since cause of action had partly arisen at Karachi, court at Karachi was competent to adjudicate upon the matter even though the suit properties were situated out of Karachi

Validity

Sections 16, 17 & 20, C.P.C. did not apply to High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction by virtue of S. 120, C.P.C.

Original civil jurisdiction of High Court was derived under Art. 5 of High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order, 1955

Sections 16, 17 & 20 and clause 12 of Letters Patent prescribed forum and place for suing, but said provisions did not apply to High Court

Article 5 of High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order, 1955 and S. 8 of Sindh Courts Act, 1926 did not prescribe place of suing

Article 5 of High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order, 1955 saved jurisdiction of Karachi Bench as exercised by it under S. 8 of Sindh Courts Act, 1926

Jurisdiction of High Court was enlarged and not restricted by removing altogether restrictions contained in Ss. 16, 17 & 20, C.P.C.

Two alternative conclusions could arise from non-applicability of Ss.16, 17 & 20, C.P.C. to High Courts; first was that West Pakistan High Court could not entertain any suit, whatsoever, and second, it could entertain suits from all places within its jurisdiction

High Court observed that jurisdiction of Sindh High Court to entertain suits was basically neither ordinary nor extraordinary, original civil jurisdiction of High Court but simply district court jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Sindh High Court to try civil suit was confined to matters where pecuniary value of subject-matter exceeded thirty hundred thousand rupees

Under S. 120, C.P.C., place of suing was not to be determined by Ss. 16, 17 & 20, C.P.C., but by provision which had conferred original civil jurisdiction on High Court

Original civil jurisdiction was conferred on the High Court under S.7 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, which was limited only for territorial limits of Karachi

If suit did not fall within ambit of original civil jurisdiction of High Court then place of suing for such suit was to be determined under Ss. 16 to 20, C.P.C., and plaint was to be returned to be presented before court of appropriate jurisdiction

Provisions of S. 18, C.P.C. had not been made inapplicable under S.120, C.P.C.

Provisions of S. 19, C.P.C. had also not been made inapplicable to original civil jurisdiction of High Court under S. 120, C.P.C.

High court while exercising powers of original civil jurisdiction exercise jurisdiction that was exercised by civil court in civil district of Karachi that it was functioning as principal civil court or original jurisdiction for district of Karachi only under special statute

Present suit was to be filed before proper and competent court having jurisdiction

If property was situated outside Karachi, then High Court would have no jurisdiction

Section 120, C.P.C. had not enlarged scope of High Court with regard to property situated in whole of Sindh

If suit property was situated outside Karachi, then High Court Sindh had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit

High Court returned plaint to be filed before court of competent jurisdiction

Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and suit was filed before High Court in its original civil jurisdiction

Validity

Deliberate use of words 'the District Court' in S.13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, with word 'shall' was sufficient to establish intention of lawmakers that no other court would have jurisdiction to try cases filed under Defamation Ordinance, 2002

High Court was 'Civil Court' but such could not be confused that, High Court while exercising its original civil jurisdiction had become 'District Court' or could dress it up as a 'particular court'

When law itself did not confer jurisdiction, no Court could legally create such jurisdiction, even the High Court

Law could permit Courts to interpret law but not to step onto the domain of Legislature i.e. 'making of law'

To confer jurisdiction was function of lawmakers and the suit was triable by 'District Court' concerned which jurisdiction could not be taken away even on the ground of `pecuniary jurisdiction'

Case under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was to be tried by District Court, as directed by special law

Suit filed before High Court was barred by law

Plaint was returned in circumstances.

Mere return of plaint neither means dismissal of suit nor amounts to deciding issues on merits.

Plaintiff was tenant in that flat where both the parties had some dispute and appeared before a Court of competent jurisdiction and a judgment had already been passed by that Court of foreign jurisdiction

Plaintiff filed suit at place "I" seeking recovery of improvements carried out by her in the flat during the period it was in her possession as tenant

Plea raised by plaintiff was that cause of action had accrued to parties at place "I"

Suit filed by plaintiff was returned by Trial Court for filing the same before Court of competent jurisdiction

Validity

Plaintiff defended action brought by defendants against her before foreign Court at place "L" without making any objection to its jurisdiction

By doing so, plaintiff took a chance of an order in her favour but later on she could not take exception to jurisdiction when order of foreign Court had gone against her

Plaintiff could not assert that Civil Court at place "I" had jurisdiction over the matter which had been agitated by her in her counter claim before that foreign Court

Defendants resided way beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court at place "I" and provisions of O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. stood attracted in the matter

Trial Court, under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. was obligated to return the plaint at any stage of the suit for presentation in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted

When Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, plaint had to be returned at the earliest

Trial Court could exercise such power suo motu and needed not wait for defendant to appear and file an application for return of plaint, which on the face of it was liable to be returned

Cause of action or any part of it did not arise within the jurisdiction of Civil Court at place "I"

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as the same did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Branch of plaintiff bank -in foreign country advanced finance facility to defendant company registered in that foreign country but Directors of the company were Pakistanis

Plaintiff Bank filed suit in Pakistan against defendant company and its Directors

Validity

­Transaction in question or for filing of suit in Pakistan under S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Bank was not a "financial institution" under S. 2(a) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

High Court returned plaint to plaintiff Bank and set aside judgment and decree passed by Banking Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Due to default in payment of instalments, petitioner repossessed the vehicle and during that period many parts of the vehicle were replaced

Respondent filed a suit before Consumer Court alleging that petitioner had provided defective product and defective service to him

Petitioner bank assailed jurisdiction of Consumer Court on the matter which application was dismissed

Validity

No claim for defective services could be raised by respondent for the reason that petitioner had not undertaken any obligation to provide services having direct nexus or connection with leased vehicle

Claim of respondent was that petitioner failed to fulfil its obligation towards him as a customer, when it failed to take proper care of the vehicle, which petitioner had lawfully repossessed insofar as certain parts were allegedly replaced or stolen

Claim of respondent was based on lease agreement between parties and his cause of action had arisen out of failure on the part of petitioner bank to fulfil an obligation towards him to keep vehicle safe after it was repossessed

Case of respondent was covered by S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on the basis of which he could file a claim against petitioner bank

Such claim in terms of S.7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, could be filed only in Banking Court, for which said court had exclusive jurisdiction

Relationship between petitioner bank and respondent was that of financial institution and customer

Alleged replacement/theft of certain parts of vehicle while in custody of petitioner bank, if proved could constitute default in fulfilment of obligation on the part of petitioner bank for determination of which dispute exclusive jurisdiction was with Banking Court established under the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

High Court set aside the order passed by Consumer Court and returned the plaint to respondent for filing the same in competent court

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court returned the plaint holding that civil court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case in view of barring provisions contained in Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Validity

Provisions of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 were applicable only in such cases of water disputes where lands were being irrigated from main canal constructed, maintained or controlled by the Provincial Government through Irrigation Department

Settlement of differences over irrigation rights could not be resolved through the hierarchy of Irrigation Department where any water channel or any outlet had neither been constructed by the Government nor same was being financed, maintained, managed or controlled by the said Government through Irrigation Department but had been constructed, managed and controlled privately

Refusal of both the courts below to exercise their jurisdiction over the issue in hand was illegal

Present issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of civil court

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Reference had been filed before the Referee Judge for determination of amount of compensation which was sufficient to redress grievance of effectee/owner of a property

Civil court had got no jurisdiction to try the matter if right was created by special law and procedure for enforcement of the same had also been provided in such special law

Plaintiffs had already joined the procedure and adjudication under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which had provided forum in the shape of reference

Both the courts below had passed just, balanced and correct judgments/orders

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Registered office of the company for the purpose of winding up of the same was one which had longest been the registered office of said company during last six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding up

Cause of action in the present case had accrued within the jurisdiction of High Court whose jurisdiction registered office of the company was situated

Court under S. 20(c), C.P.C. would only have the jurisdiction over the matters if the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of its jurisdiction

"Cause of action" as used in S. 20(c), C.P.C. with regard to jurisdiction of court would with regard to the facts or allegations giving rise to a claim leading to infringement of some right of a party and not to a notional or imaginary assertion in such context

Landing of machinery at the Port of Karachi would not infringe any right of the plaintiffs within the jurisdiction of the Court

If rights were infringed in entering into contract for the purchase of the machinery then such rights would be infringed at the place where the contract was entered i.e. within the jurisdiction of High Court where right was infringed

Plaintiffs could not create a cause of action by their own effort but same must be created by some act of the defendants

Company had entered into an agreement for purchase of machinery in Punjab where registered office of the same was situated and machinery was being imported which would arrive there via Port of Karachi

Machinery was to be installed and used at Multan (Punjab) within the jurisdiction of Lahore High Court

Defendants had not done anything that had breached or infringed rights of plaintiffs within the jurisdiction of Lahore High Court

Landing of consignment at Karachi Port and that too for its onward journey was not breach of any right

Plaintiffs had to make out a case that certain rights which were being enjoyed by them were declined and the alleged landing of consignment at Karachi for its onward destination would not constitute infringement of rights which they were enjoying

Plaint was returned in circumstances to the plaintiffs.

Permission under S.92, C.P.C. had been granted by Advocate-General and no cause was in field as to the legality of institution of present suit by a religious trust

Party had right to move an application under the law and imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000 was liable to be waived

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff-petitioner in her plaint admitted that the amount of dower was paid by her husband but her father got the said amount deposited in his own bank account and was adamant not to pay it to her

Controversy was between the daughter and father and husband could not be held responsible

Family Court had no jurisdiction and the matter was within the domain of civil court

Right forum for the plaintiff-petitioner was to approach the civil court for recovery of the amount

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Suit for recovery of money was filed at place "K" and defendant company sought return of plaint on the ground that courts at place "H" had territorial jurisdiction over the matter

Plea raised by defendants was that receipts attached by plaintiff with plaint were forged

Validity

"For the purpose of determining application under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C., contents of plaint were to be taken on their face value

Question of return of plaint must be determined on the basis of allegations made in plaint

Plaintiff's choice to sue defendant was circumscribed by two conditions i.e. place where cause of action accrued and the place where defendant resided or was carrying on business or personally worked for gain

Discretion under O. VII, R.10, Cr.P.C. had been given to court to return plaint at any stage of the suit for presentation before proper court

Court which had no jurisdiction over a suit could not pass any judicial order in such a suit except orders which statute had empowered it to pass

When court found that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, it should return the plaint for presentation before appropriate court having jurisdiction

Allegation that plaintiff had manipulated and forged few documents, such aspect could only be decided after evidence and no definite finding could be given at such stage and preview of plaint adverting that no case of return of plaint was made out

Head office of defendant company was situated at place "K" therefore, plaintiff's suit was maintainable and court had ample jurisdiction to try and dispose of the same

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of their documents deposited with defendant-Bank at place "I" but they filed suit at place "K"

Validity

Plaintiffs claimed to have deposited title documents in respect of their immovable property with defendant-Bank at place "I", where according to plaintiffs, their documents were lying

Suit should have been instituted at place "I" before appropriate forum where subject matter of suit viz. immovable property was situated

High Court returned the suit for presenting the same before appropriate Court at place "I"

Plaint was returned in circumstances.