Institution of suit

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.

Wife/applicant filed suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery maintenance allowance and dowry at place "L", whereas husband had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights and for obtaining guardianship of minor before Family Court at place "P"

Contention of the wife was that convenience of wife took precedence in the choice of the forum, therefore, all proceedings be transferred to place "L"

Validity

According to R.6(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 the first ground for determination of territorial jurisdiction was the place where the cause of action wholly or in part arose, and in custody or guardianship matter, if the minor was with the mother and had been illegally removed from her custody, at the place of her residence, cause of action shall be said to have arisen at such a place; otherwise the cause shall be deemed to have arisen where the minor was residing

Suit for restoration of conjugal rights, in the present case, must stand transferred to place "L" under principle laid down in S.7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 read with R.6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965

As far as the guardianship matter was concerned, there was not enough evidence to show that father had snatched minor from mother's custody therefore, the guardianship matter in respect of minor who was residing with father at place "P" was liable to be heard by the Courts of District of place "P"; however, such finding was subject to any evidence brought by wife before competent court on record to demonstrate that child was snatched from her custody by the father

Application was disposed of, accordingly.

Wife/applicant filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance at place "L", whereas husband had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court at place "S"

Contention of the wife was that per S.7 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the forum for adjudication of both suits should situate at the place convenient for the wife

Held, that forum of convenience of wife took precedence for the purpose of determination of a family dispute covered by the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Application was allowed, in circumstances.