| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2262 2011 SLD 2262 2011 PLD 416 |
Sindh High Court
Revision Application No. 27 and C.M.A. No. 146 of 2007, decided on 16th May, 2011, DATE of hearing: 1st April, 2011.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Sundardas for Applicant. Azhar Mehmood for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Revision Application No. 27 and C.M.A. No. 146 of 2007, decided on 16th May, 2011, DATE of hearing: 1st April, 2011.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Sundardas for Applicant. Azhar Mehmood for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
NORMEEN SHAFI--Applicant
VS
AMJAD SHAFI and 5 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20(c)---Term "cause of action "---Connotation---Term cause of action refers to every fact which if traversed it should be necessary for plaintiff to prove in order to support his and which if not proved, give defendant a right to ---Bundle or totality of essential facts is necessary for plaintiff to prove before he succeeds. Muhammad Shabbir v. Mrs. Faraha Bibi 2010 CLC 1603 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20, Expln.-II---Territorial jurisdiction of court---Corporation having more than one offices---Corporation can be said to carry on business at head office or at the place where it has a branch in respect of a cause of action which arises wholly or in part, at the place where branch office is situated---If no part of cause of action arises at the place of branch office, the Corporation cannot said to transact business at that place. 1981 SCMR 494 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.39, 42 & 54---Cause of action---Territorial jurisdiction of court---Determination---Dispute was with regard to shares of a company having its registered office at place "H" and also having its property at place "I"-Suit filed by plaintiff at place "H" was returned to her for filing the same in court at place "I"-Validity---Totality of facts must co-exist and if anything was wanting the claim would be incompetent---Part was included in the whole but the whole could never be equal to the part---Not only the party seeking relief should have a cause of action when the transaction or alleged act was done but also at the time of institution of the claim--There could be a case where at the time when an action was brought, there was no right to seek the remedy though the remedy was available when the right was infringed---Suitor was required to show that not only a right had been infringed in a manner to entitle him to a relief but also that when he approached the court, the right to seek the relief was in existence---Judgments and decrees passed by two courts below were set aside and the matter was remanded to trial court to decide the suit on merits---Petition…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492