Law:

Section:

Keywords: Result: F.A.O. Dismissed ORDER ' MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J. - Since the First Appeal from Order No, 6/2015 ("FAO No, 6/2016") and the First Appeal from Order No, 7/2015 ("FAO No, 7/2016") arise out of the same set of facts, I propose disposing them off by a common judgment. The appellant and the respondents in both the appeals are the same persons. 2. FAO No, 6/2016 has been filed by the appellant, Ms. Namoos Zaheer, against the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, whereby the plaint in the appellant's suit for damages against the respondents was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, 3. FAO No, 7/2016 has been filed by the appellant, Ms. Namoos Zaheer, against the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, whereby the plaint in the appellant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction. 4. The two respondents/defendants (Mr. Azfar Hussain & Mrs. Nasreen Hussain) in the said suits are residents of Karachi. The suit for damages primarily relates to the recovery of an amount expended on improvements and other allied expenditures allegedly carried out by the appellant/plaintiff on Flat No, 19, Nottingham Terrace, London, NW1 4QB, United Kingdom ("the Flat"), which she occupied for a period of six years as a tenant. 5. The respondents admittedly, owned the Flat, the appellant occupied it for about 6 years in her capacity as a tenant. The appellant vacated the Flat on 30.11.2013 and claims that the rent payable to the landlords had to be off set against the improvements carried out by her on the Flat. 6. It is pleaded by the appellant that respondents filed a claim for recovery of arrears of rent before the County Court at London, and were able to obtain an ex-parte order on 28.10.2015 for an amount of 31,415/-, alongwith judgment debt, legal costs and interest, against the appellant. 7. The appellant is of the view that even though the property where the appellant resided as a tenant and carried out improvements is located at London; and the respondents reside in Karachi, the Civil…