Territorial jurisdiction

Applicant / company was withholding agent and was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by Authorities for non-deducting of sale tax on the services

Plea raised by applicant / company was that taxable services were provided in other province and tax could not be charged only for the reason that head office was registered in the Province of Punjab

Validity

Mere residency of a company in Punjab or its classification as a prescribed withholding agent does not, by itself, create a substantive tax liability under Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012

Liability to sales tax under Ss. 11, 24 & 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 was fastened exclusively upon a registered person providing taxable services

Punjab Revenue Authority was competent to initiate withholding tax proceedings on the basis of undisputed audited accounts showing composite amounts paid for services; final determination of withholding tax liability could not be made on aggregated figures alone

Each individual transaction was to be reconciled and examined to ascertain whether it had constituted a taxable service, the applicable rate of tax, and the obligation to deduct and deposit tax

Burden was upon the withholding agent to explain nature of transactions and justify non-deduction of tax

Once documentary evidence was produced before Appellate Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, to scrutinize and reconcile each transaction and determine taxability accordingly

Appellate Tribunal's failure to undertake such exercise amounted to non-application of judicial mind, warranting annulment of its order and remand of the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law

High Court declared that the show cause notice was issued without any legal foundation and Appellate Tribunal had erred in upholding initiation of proceedings under S. 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 against applicant / company, despite absence of any statutory authority permitting such proceedings against a service recipient

Appellate Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on Withholding Rules, 2015, as subordinate legislation could not enlarge or create a substantive tax liability not contemplated by the parent statute

High Court set aside order passed by Appellate Tribunal as well as Order in-Original and show cause notice, as the Appellate Tribunal fell in error by sustaining proceedings and by affirming jurisdiction of Punjab Revenue Authority against applicant / company

Reference was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner / Importer sought issuance of a direction to Respondents / Department for assessment of duty of its imported goods on the basis of the Valuation Ruling in vogue

Held: High Court had the territorial jurisdiction since the consignment was not claimed to be cleared for home consumption under S. 79 of the Customs Act , 1969 ('the Act 1969') and was subject to release/ex-bonded from the bonded warehouse of the petitioner and thus in terms of S. 30 read with 31A of the Act 1969, the relevant port for the purpose of determining the territorial jurisdiction shall be the place from where the goods were being ex-bonded, therefore, the objection of territorial jurisdiction had no basis

Constitutional petition was allowed.

The alleged complaint about the embezzlement in service medicines was relating to PAF Hospital [at Karachi]; the Board of Inquiry was initiated by the correspondence

Base Routine Orders issued from [Karachi]

Since the crucial set of facts had previously occurred [at Karachi], therefore, the High Court [at Karachi] had territorial jurisdiction to scrutinize the controversy.

Petitioners/companies were aggrieved of their disqualification to tender their bids at pre-qualification stage of public procurement of livestock (Cow and Buffalo Heifers) to a scheme namely "Livestock Asset Transfer to Rural Women in South Punjab" ('the Scheme')

Petitioners had filed constitutional petitions before the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court ('Rawalpindi Bench/Court')

Objection was raised regarding maintainability of constitutional petitions qua territorial jurisdiction of this (Rawalpindi) Bench/Court

Plea raised by the petitioners, against objection, was that the addresses of offices of the petitioners were located at Rawalpindi and Islamabad, thus cause of action had arisen at territorial jurisdiction of the Rawalpindi Bench/Court

Validity

Pertinently, all concerned official respondents (like the Director General, officers, members of grievance committee) relating to the Scheme belonged to concerned Department(s) of South Punjab (Bahawalpur), for the purpose to conduct proceedings under the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 ('the Rules 2014') i.e. issuing invitation of pre-qualification bids, entertaining grievances, conducting the procurement process of the Scheme and redressing the grievance of the bidders

It became apparent that neither the part of the cause of action had arisen in Rawalpindi nor the official respondents arrayed in present petition(s) against whom relief was sought, were situated in Rawalpindi, nor fell within the territorial jurisdiction of this (Rawalpindi Bench of) Lahore High Court and, thus, were not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court

Constitutional petitions, falling beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this/Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court, were dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit for declaration, permanent injunction seeking administration, rendition of accounts, partition of several properties

Territorial jurisdiction

Scope

Application for summoning/calling of record filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed by the Trial Court

Contention of the petitioners was that such an application could not be allowed as the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit

Validity

Suit in the Trial Court was regarding the partition of several properties situated in the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts, thus, under S. 17, C.P.C. the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit for partition relating to all properties because these properties would be considered as a portion of the suit property

Suit for partition of the suit property (a portion of properties required to be partitioned) was based upon the cancellation of gift deed and custodian of the record of the gift deed, who had also been arrayed as defendant, did not produce the record of the gift deed, thus, it was necessary to call the record of the gift deed so as to reach a just decision in the suit

Suit for administration could be instituted within the territorial jurisdiction of any Court where any part of the deceased's estate is located, which principle was well established under the law governing civil suits and succession matters

Administration suit differs from a partition suit in legal scope and effect

While a partition suit primarily seeks the division of specific joint property among co-owners, an administration suit covers a broader scope, including the identification, valuation, management, distribution and settlement of liabilities of the deceased's estate in accordance with succession laws, thus, in view of the legal distinction between these two types of suits and the jurisdictional principles governing administration suits, the suit was rightly instituted within the appropriate jurisdiction, considering the location of the deceased's assets and the Trial Court lawfully assumed the jurisdiction

Under S. 21, C.P.C., an objection to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible stage before the Trial Court and pursued diligently and in the absence of such persistent agitation, a party cannot later challenge the jurisdiction of the court after having willingly participated in the proceedings

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If primary relief pertains to actions or proceedings within jurisdiction of one High Court, another High Court cannot assume jurisdiction

One High Court cannot outrightly quash FIRs lodged within territorial limits of other High Courts when dominant object falls within the territorial limits of those High Courts.

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.

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.

Defendants contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction for the reasons that finance facilities were extended to them at district 'H' and that the agreements pursuant thereto were also executed at 'ICT' and the district 'H', thus, the plaint was liable to be returned

Plaintiff contended that the registered office of the defendants fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court

Validity

No doubt, the registered office of a defendant served as official address for legal and administrative purposes and determined the jurisdiction to which the firm was subject to but at the same time it is important to note that the registered office did not necessarily determine the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction, especially when the cause of action had arisen in a different city, such as the location of the contract execution

Finance facilities were extended to the defendants after execution of agreements at 'ICT' and district 'H', the defendants were residents of 'ICT' and district 'H', correspondence for applying and approving the finance facilities were made by the parties at 'ICT' and district 'H', mortgaged properties were situated at 'ICT' and district 'H', hence, the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendants

Plaint was returned to the defendants for presenting it before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Such sale deed is devoid of any legality.

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.

Contention of accused was that he initially approached the Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts at district 'P' for his release on bail but the same was returned to him for want of jurisdiction to entertain the same as the FIR was registered at district 'I', as such, accused had got no other adequate remedy

Held; that FIR was lodged by the FIA

Federal Investigation Agency Headquarters had been declared as a Police Station for the purposes of Code of Criminal Procedure and its jurisdiction was extended to the whole of Pakistan

Accused had also been charged under S. 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the FIR, therefore, the Anti-Terrorism Court at 'P' had jurisdiction to try the case of the accused

Accused was at liberty to file a fresh post arrest bail petition before the Anti-Terrorism Court which would be decided on merits

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter as cheque was issued at place "V" whereas suit was filed at place "K" where the cheque was dishonoured

Validity

Courts in both the districts had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Respondent / plaintiff had option to choose forum for filing the suit in anyone of the districts having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Such exercise of choice of forum by respondent / plaintiff could be objected to by appellant / defendant, except on the ground of mala fide to be established by him which had not been done

No reason existed to allow application to return the plaint filed in district "K" to be presented before Court at District "V"

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as the same was well within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and was based on proper appreciation of record and did not suffer from any illegality, error of law or jurisdictional defect

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent/plaintiff was granted three mining leases: "first lease" falling under the territorial limits of two districts (Karachi and Jamshoro); while "second lease" and "third lease" were falling under exclusive territorial limits of Karachi and Jamshoro, respectively

Single Judge of the High Court observed (vide impugned order) that suit regarding "first lease" could be filed at Karachi in view of S.17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Single Judge had also partly returned the plaint of respondent/plaintiff regarding "third lease" for filing it before the competent Court at Jamshoro; and directedhim to amend plaint after deleting the irrelevant leases

Defendant filed appeal praying the said impugned order may be re-called/set aside, contending that according to S.7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, original jurisdiction of High Court at Karachi was confined to the Karachi District only

Validity

Single Judge had rightly returned the plaint under O. VII, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in respect of "third lease" exclusively falling within territorial limits of District Jamshoro

Single Judge, regarding "first lease", opined that plaintiff was at liberty to choose any of the Courts where disputed land was situated for filing his suit

While entertaining a suit relating to immovable property emanating in Karachi having a value of more than pecuniary limit of ordinary civil Courts, the place of suing as determined under Ss. 16 & 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 would become immaterial and was not to be considered as under S.7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962

Original side of Sindh High Court became the place of suing

Section 120 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 could be interpreted only in that manner

Impugned order did not require any interference

Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

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.

Guardian Court was the final arbiter for adjudicating question of custody of children and legal course for obtaining custody of child for a parent or one interested in obtaining custody of child was with Guardian Court within the meaning and scope of S.25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Where there appeared an exception to normal situation, child could not be left to suffer consequences of procedural hurdles and lethargy of system at the cost of child's welfare rather one deprived of lawful custody provided a way to invoke jurisdiction of Court under S.491, Cr.P.C. as interim measure till final arbiter would decide question of custody finally

Minors were residing with their father at place "K" and prima facie never accrued first step of abnormality i.e. 'illegal removal of child from lawful custody', which alone was sufficient to let normal legal course prevail

Matter was outside the limits of appellate criminal jurisdiction of High Court at place "L", therefore, High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Application was dismissed, 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.

Applicant/complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who partly allowed his application only to the extent of offence committed in his territorial jurisdiction and declined remaining part falling outside his territorial jurisdiction

Validity

Nothing prevented High Court to give appropriate direction or to make an order for registration of FIR at any of the two police stations where the alleged continued offence consisting of several acts was committed

High Court directed Station House Officer to record statement of applicant/complainant under S. 154, Cr.P.C. including but not limited to the allegations in respect of continuing acts committed within the local areas of his police station and as well register FIR against all nominated/proposed accused in other district

High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to the extent of offence falling outside his territorial jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Alleged detainee was handed over by petitioner to her parents, as such it was not a case of forcible detention or disappearance

Wife of petitioner was residing with her parents in a district of province of Punjab

High Court regarding habeas corpus petition did not have any jurisdiction beyond territories of province of Sindh

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Registration book regarding subject vehicle was issued by Motor Registration Authority, Balochistan, and cause of action if any had arisen there, therefore, High Court (Sindh) lacked territorial jurisdiction

Plea of petitioner regarding loan agreement was not justiciable as High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could not look into such factual controversy requiring recording of evidence

Subject vehicle was also subject matter of an investigation conducted by NAB against ex-Chief Manager of the Bank

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965, provides two grounds for determination of territorial jurisdiction and by conjoining the two grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) by word "or", it has been made clear that either of two grounds could be pressed into service.

Territorial jurisdiction in the matters regarding guardianship and custody of minor is to be determined under the provisions of Family Courts Act, 1964 and Family Courts Rules, 1965.

Case of petitioner was that respondent had gone abroad consequent upon mutual understanding to continue her education at a university and she had agreed to return to Pakistan after two years

Respondent had not denied the assertions of petitioner, as such, the petitioner's assertions would be deemed to have been admitted

Stay of respondent so also of the minor abroad was only of temporary nature, therefore, the Courts below had erred in holding that 'ordinary residence of minor' was abroad and not Pakistan

Such stay could not have been termed as 'residing together'

Orders passed by Courts below were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial court for decision afresh

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Determination of territorial jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution is neither contingent upon nor affected by S.20 of the Civil Procedure Code, as provisions of C.P.C. cannot be employed to interpret the Constitution and the scope of its provisions.

Principles to be adhered to while determining territorial jurisdiction, explained.

Order passed by the Federation or the authorities even located beyond the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or Council are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Defending spouse sought return of plaint on the plea that they were living at place "Q" and cause of action had also accrued at place "Q" therefore, Courts at place "M" had no power to adjudicate

Validity

Suing spouse had choice of selecting his / her forum either as (i) the district where parties had last resided together or (ii) the district within the local limits of which both the husband and wife resided, though living separately

Matter was governed by first category that parties were married at place "Q" and lastly resided together at place "M"

For determination of jurisdiction, provision of S.20, C.P.C. was not to be taken into consideration as provision of S.3(3) of Divorce Act, 1869, catered for the position with regard to determination of jurisdiction of Court

In presence of provision in special law the provision of general law was not to be taken into consideration

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Question of territorial jurisdiction is initially determined merely by contents of the plaints, the documents attached therewith, on the basis of other relevant material and the cause of action existing at the time of institution of a suit

Only the facts have nexus or relevance with the issues raised in the litigation which vest the court with the territorial jurisdiction

Section 20 of C.P.C. lays down general rule regarding the legal fora for institution of suits relating to personal actions

It confers territorial jurisdiction upon a court to decide all the cases in which the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain or in which the cause of action arises wholly or partly within the local limits of such Court

So, said provision brings forth choice for the appellant and a right to select a forum out of the alternatives provided under the said provision

For determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Court wherein a suit is to be filed, clause (c) of the S.20, C.P.C. postulates that a suit can also be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose

Even fraction of a cause of action is a part of the cause of action and, therefore, even if a fraction of the cause of action accrues within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a court, that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Clause (c) of S.20 of C.P.C. is based on broad principle to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconvenience to the parties.

Only those facts which have a bearing upon the lis or the dispute involved in the case give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned

All other facts which have no nexus or relevance with the lis are to be ignored for the purpose of determination of territorial jurisdiction.

Territorial jurisdiction means a specific area over which a Court can exercise its authority.

Applicant and alleged detainee assailed order passed by Sessions Judge whereby he had assumed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application under S.491, Cr.P.C., and had accordingly issued rule nisi for production of the alleged detainee

Contention of applicants was that they were residents of district 'K' hence the Sessions Judge at district 'T' had no jurisdiction to entertain the application

Validity

Alleged detainee was married with the applicant; their nikah was registered and in their nikahnama both the applicant and alleged detainee were shown as the permanent residents of district 'T', but district 'K' was shown as their place of residence at the time of nikah

Applicant and alleged detainee had shifted to district 'K' and after getting married had started living as a couple

Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate that more than sufficient evidence was available on record to substantiate that the applicant and detainee were not residing within its territorial jurisdiction, but were residing at district 'K'

Assumption of jurisdiction in the matter and taking cognizance therein by the court was void ab initio

Proceedings before the Sessions Judge were quashed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed the validity of valuation ruling by contending that the department was adamant to calculate the customs duty on petitioner's consignment on the basis of a ruling which was later on revised

Validity

Petitioner was bound to pay the customs duty on the value determined under the valuation ruling

Revised ruling was not applicable in the case of the petitioner

Impugned valuation ruling was issued, were beyond the territorial jurisdiction of High Court

High Court could issue appropriate direction to any person carrying on the affairs of Federation within its territorial jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Demand for payment was made by petitioner from his office at place "I" and it was also received by respondent at place "I"

Effect

Civil Court at place "I" was competent to decide application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by petitioner.

Petitioner assailed the concurrent dismissal of his application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. wherein he had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at 'H' on the ground that the property was situated at 'I'

Validity

Disputed power of attorney was admittedly executed at 'H'

Marginal witnesses of said power of attorney also belonged to 'H'

Disputed power of attorney was also registered at 'H', therefore, the Civil Judge at 'H' had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter

Writ petition was dis-missed, in circumstances.

Terms and conditions mentioned in bill of lading with regard to jurisdiction of Court at any particular place could not be considered so sacrosanct or untouchable in admiralty jurisdiction under codified law but the Court while exercising jurisdiction to stay the suit had to comprehend whether the Court had otherwise jurisdiction to decide the lis in its applicable admiralty laws or not

No such condition in law was mentioned to oust partial or outright jurisdiction of High Court but the case had to be decided in the parameters and confined of law

Stay of proceedings could not be claimed as a matter of right otherwise whole purpose of Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court vested in law could become redundant and superfluous and its jurisdiction was only to be restricted and limited to arrest the ship and ask for security as precondition to allow sailing of vessel then stay the suit such was not the actual philosophy and astuteness of law

Defendants had filed suit before Court in "London" which could be decided independently without any predominating or overriding effect on pending suit in local laws jurisdiction

Here not only security was furnished but some material orders had already been passed in Trial Court so the issues should be settled and parties were to be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence so that pending suit could be decided on merits rather than lying dormant or hanging around without any lawful purpose and justification

Continuance of action in High Court was not to operate as an injustice to defendants, who had failed to make out a case that plaintiff did not disclose a cause of action or that the suit was frivolous, vexatious and or oppressive to them or it amounted to an abuse of process of the Court

High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed inquiry before High Court situated at place 'K' on plea that all notices and process was received by him at place 'K'

Validity

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was a federal entity having presence in entire country

Regional Bureaus of NAB were working in respective provinces were independent to each other

If an enquiry or investigation entrusted to a bureau of a particular province and same was matured into a reference, then it was to be filed in Accountability Court situated in that particular province

Accountability Court situated in a particular province remained under administrative control of High Court of that province

Law in clear terms had defined lines for inquiring or investigating any matter involving offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Authority of Chairman NAB to refer such matter for inquiry or investigation and in event of reference, relevant Accountability Court where matter would be referred for trial

Right, if any, of a person to challenge inquiry or investigation before High Court that was being held by Regional Bureau of a different province would be governed by such defined outlines regarding territorial jurisdiction

High Court had no territorial jurisdiction therefore, declined to quash proceedings of inquiry being held by NAB at place 'L' against petitioner and others

High Court converted petition into petition for protective bail and granted same to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Plea raised by respondent was that the minors were not residing in the territorial jurisdiction of High Court and were living in another Province, therefore, petitioner was not maintainable

Validity

Pre-requisite for invoking provision of Art. 199 (1)(b)(i) of the Constitution is that an order to that effect can only be made for a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court

Territorial jurisdiction signifies limits of a Court because the law in its generality is territorial and this is fundamental hall mark foundational pillar of the English jurisprudence

When one Court has been established for a particular territorial boundaries then to exercise jurisdiction in that domain, for which prerogative is of the other High Court is against the law and coram non judice and without lawful authority

High Court declined to interfere in the matter due to lack of territorial jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Question before High Court was whether suit for recovery and permanent injunction filed by customer against Stock Exchange Broker was liable to rejected as the same was filed in Civil Court at place "I" whereas the defendant and plaintiff were both based in place "K"

Held, that parties and cause of action accrued pertained to place "K"

Main relief for recovery of amount attracted Ss. 19 and 20 of C.P.C. where parameters for determination of jurisdiction of Civil Court in such suits were laid down and per which the same where to be instituted were defendants resided or cause of action arose

Suit filed at place "I" was therefore liable to be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution is extended to any person carrying on affairs of Federation, a Province or a Local Authority within territorial jurisdiction of court

Jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court is somewhat different from other four provincial High Courts inasmuch as jurisdiction of provincial High Courts is extended to the extent of Federation, a Province and Local Authority

Islamabad Capital Territory is not a province but has special status of Federal Capital and jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court extends to Federation, affairs of Islamabad Capital Territory and Local Authorities.

Petitioner assailed order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby he ordered for registration of FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Petitioner contended that cheque in question was dishonoured in District 'S', so the Ex-officio Justice of Peace at place 'T' had no jurisdiction to entertain application under S. 22A, Cr.P.C.; that civil liability was being converted into criminal liability; that suit for rendition of accounts was sub judice before the court of competent jurisdiction and that date of issuance of cheque was tampered by the complainant

Plea of complainant was that he had deposited the cheque in his Bank account at place 'T' and that the offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was completed at district 'S' where cheque in question was dishonoured, consequences of offence in terms of S. 179, Cr.P.C. were ensued at place 'T', therefore, complainant had the option to initiate proceedings at any of the two places

Validity

When a person committed any offence or did some act and due to that act any consequence ensued, such offence could be inquired into or tried by the court where act was done or consequence ensued

When the cheque was dishonoured, the offence was complete, but the complainant came to know about commission of offence at place 'T'

Consequences of the offence in terms of S. 179, Cr.P.C. were ensued at place 'T', therefore, complainant rightly submitted complaint under S. 22A, Cr.P.C. before Ex-officio Justice of Peace at place 'T'

No legal impediment or prohibition was in the way of complainant

Complainant had option or choice that he could initiate criminal proceedings under S. 489-F, Cr.P.C. at any of the two places

Disputed question of facts involved in the matter could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, being bereft of merit, was dismissed.

Petitioner assailed detention of her husband in a foreign country on basis of arrest warrants issued by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in Pakistan

Objection raised by NAB was that "aggrieved person" was not in Pakistan therefore petition was not maintainable in Pakistan

Validity

Proceedings against husband of petitioner on account of which he was eventually arrested were initiated by NAB in Pakistan

Different orders were passed against husband of petitioner by Accountability Court in Pakistan in execution whereof husband of petitioner was first declared proclaimed offender, then his perpetual warrants of arrest were issued on basis of which his red notices were issues by Interpol and he was arrested in a foreign country thus cause of action had arisen in Pakistan

Constitutional petition was maintainable in circumstances.

Petitioners sought recovery of their daughters from area falling in province of Sindh, from respondents, who had taken them to some place in province of Punjab

Powers conferred upon High Court to issue writ of Habeas Corpus could only be exercised within territorial jurisdiction of court and not otherwise

Detenues were alleged to be in custody in another province and High Court of Sindh had no jurisdiction to issue writ for recovery of detenues

High Court directed Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure that efforts to recover detenues in crime registered at his police station were expedited

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed judgment and decree passed by Trial Court on the ground of having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Contention of petitioner was that wife used to reside at place G and she never ordinarily resided at place K and that as per R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965, the wife could not file a suit for maintenance from the place of her ordinary residence

Validity

Petitioner himself had approached the Family Court at place G with a plaint but the said court directed him to approach the Court having jurisdiction at place K

Petitioner having not challenged said verdict before any forum, could not be allowed to reopen an already settled matter, under S. 7 of Family Courts Act, 1964, a plaint for dissolution of marriage could contain all claims including maintenance, meaning thereby, that if a wife filed suit for dissolution of marriage from the place of her ordinary residence, she could combine the prayer of maintenance along with other prayers

If contention of petitioner was admitted that R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965 did not allow the wife to file a suit for maintenance from the place of ordinary residence, then it would be a contradictory view as to a clear-cut provision provided under first proviso of S. 7, Family Courts Act, 1964

Rule 6 was a beneficial rule framed with intention to provide convenience to a wife, separated from her husband, as such, the relief given to a wife under said Rule could not be stretched in favour of husband by forcing her to file a suit for maintenance at his place of residence

Suit for maintenance was competently filed

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Question as to whether the Trial Court where family suit was filed under Hindu Law could exercise jurisdiction in view of facts, pleadings and Rules

Petitioner/wife contended that Family Court where husband had filed the suit, had no jurisdiction to entertain the same as spouses never last resided at the address given in the plaint

Respondent/husband contended that Family Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the wife, raising objection on the territorial jurisdiction, as the same was filed just to buy time

Validity

Family Courts Act, 1964 and Family Courts Rules, 1965 were applicable to all Family Courts including but not limited to those who professed different religions

Rule 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965 determined the jurisdiction to try suit within local limits of which (a) the cause of action wholly or in part arose (b) where the parties resided or last resided together, provided that in the suit for dissolution of marriage and dower amount the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resided, would also have jurisdiction

Said proviso was primarily in consideration of the fact that Muslim woman who filed her suit for dissolution of marriage and dower amount would also be in position to avail the jurisdiction of local limits where she ordinarily resided but the same did not exclude the jurisdiction of the two situations regarding cause of action or last residence together

Husband being Hindu by religion, in the present case, had filed suit for judicial separation under Hindu Law and had attempted to exercise the first part of R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965, however, husband had not pleaded that the parties last resided or ever resided at the address given in the plaint

Record revealed that in another case filed by the husband for recovery of dowry articles, he had shown different addresses of both

Party could not say to have resided at the place when it was not pleaded as such

Application by wife was not moved to buy time

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court and restored the application filed by the wife

Family Court was directed to consider said application in the light of facts and circumstances de novo

Constitutional petition was partly allowed.

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.

Such objections unless raised before the Court of first instance "at the earliest possible opportunity" were not even considered by the appellate or revisional Court

Appellate or revisional Court would only consider such objections provided all three conditions as set down in S. 21, C.P.C. were met; firstly, objection as to territorial jurisdiction was raised in the Court of first instance; secondly, such objection was raised at the earliest opportunity and in case the issues were settled, before settlement of issue; and, thirdly, there had been consequent failure of justice.

Civil court at place "Q" in consideration of fact that mining lease was situated in place "D" returned the plaint to be presented before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, which order was maintained by the District Judge

High Court, however, concluded that "the matter in issue pertained to an area of some mining lease and rights thereon; that it did not directly relate to right and interest in the immoveable property, thus suit could be filed at the place where the cause of action in whole or in part had arisen, and that the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was not timely pressed by the defendant, and such conduct amounted to waiver

Consequently, the High Court directed civil court at place "Q" to proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Legality

Mining lease meant rights and interest in mines and minerals in and on the surface of earth or land

Mines and minerals were regarded as moveable property

Rights and interest in mines and mineral on or in the surface of land was separate and distinct from "rights to or interest in immoveable property" within the contemplation of clause (d) of S. 16, C.P.C.

All mines and minerals were always deemed to be the property of Government, irrespective of fact that title to surface land vested in an individual, certain department or any other authority

High Court had rightly held that no rights and interest in the immoveable property was involved in the present case

Defendant instead of raising objections as to territorial jurisdiction of the civil court, engaged into a long drawn battle in the High Court and Supreme Court, and was ultimately driven to Trial Court to contest the suit on merits

Written statement was filed by the defendant with considerable delay, raising issue of territorial jurisdiction

Although issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised before settlement of issues but not at the earliest opportunity

Since the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was not raised promptly before the civil court at place "Q" as required under S. 21, C.P.C., and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the defendant, therefore civil court at place "Q" was competent to decide the controversy and had the requisite jurisdiction

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.

Marriage had already dissolved on the basis of Khula at "K" and thereafter mother of minors moved from "K" to "P" without minors

Application for interim custody of minors by the mother/plaintiff was accepted

Petitioner/Father raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court at "P" with the plea that both the spouses last resided along with minors at "K" where he was permanently residing with the minors

Respondent/mother contended that petitioner/father was permanent resident of "P" where she had moved the Family Court

Validity

Nikah Nama and marriage registration certificate showed that parties were permanent residents of "P"

Despite husband's claim of permanent residence at "K", the petitioner had brought nothing on record to suggest that he had abandoned his permanent abode at "P" for good and had permanently settled at "K"

For the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction of Family Court, Family Courts Act, 1964 and Family Courts Rules, 1965, were to be taken into account and not the provisions of S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Section 5 & Sched. of Family Courts Act, 1964 included custody of children and visitation rights of the parents to meet them, while proviso to R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965 in case of suit for dissolution of marriage or dower, allowed the wife to move the Court within the local limits of which she ordinarily resided

Second proviso to S. 7(2) of Family Courts Act ,1964 introduced, [in the year 2002], the concept of composite suit/plaint by making the provision that plaint for dissolution of marriage could contain all claims

Plaint did not, in the present case, include the prayer for dissolution of marriage, however, proviso to R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965 would come to rescue of the respondent in the matter of jurisdiction of Family Court at "P" to entertain, hear and adjudicate the suit of the respondent also for custody of minors

Plaintiff, other than for dissolution of marriage, could claim a prayer for the custody of minors

Not only respondent ordinarily resided at "P", rather both the parties had their permanent residences at "P", where their marriage took place, therefore, the Family Court at "P" had jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon suit of the respondent for dower etc. including custody of minors

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Family Court, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner (Judge) was aggrieved of order passed by Judicial Commission, declining extension to him as Additional Judge of Islamabad High Court

Order passed by Judicial Commission was assailed before High Court at Peshawar

Validity

Federal Government or a body set-up by Federal Government for whole of Pakistan performed functions in relation to the affairs of Federation in all provinces, any order passed by Government, body etc. taken by it in relation to any person in any of the four provinces in the country would give High Court of that Province, in whose territory order would affect such a person, jurisdiction to hear case

Decision of Judicial Commission about fitness of a person to be appointed as Judge of High Court or to be allowed extension to an Additional Judge of High Court or to be confirmed was exclusive domain of the Judicial Commission and could not be questioned at any forum

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Court would have jurisdiction, if any of the party or both parties resided within its local limits.