Law: Companies Act, 2017

Section: 441 , 12 , 42 , 54 , 9, O. VI, R. 5 , O. VII, Rr. 1, 2

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

(a)   Companies Act (XIX of 2017)---

----S. 441---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9, O. VI, R. 5 & O. VII, Rr. 1, 2---Suit for specific performance of agreement, declaration and injunction---Rejecting of plaint---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Better statement---Scope---Plaintiff was CEO of company which claimed to be owner of suit land and had sought specific performance of agreement, declaration and injunction regarding suit property---Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that plaintiff company had not been incorporated under S. 441 of Companies Act, 2017, with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan--Validity--- Some of the rights/claims pleaded were exclusive to plaintiff CEO having no proximity to plaintiff company---There was no determination regarding such aspect in the decision of Trial Court---Contents pleaded required deeper appreciation for the purpose of ascertaining nature of causes of action---Trial Court also failed to exercise jurisdiction to call for further/better statement, in exercise of powers under O. VI, R. 5, C.P.C., if at all some clarity was required---Any deficiency found was curable defect, which situation did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C.---Trial Court was eligible and empowered to reject plaint by referring to legal disability under S. 441 of Companies Act, 2017, when jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred with respect to the matters coming under Companies Act, 2017 and otherwise jurisdictional defects needed determination in context of provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Legal disability provided in terms of S. 441 of Companies Act, 2017, was attracted or could be invoked while exercising jurisdiction under S. 9, C.P.C., if it was established that plaintiff company was a foreign company---High Court set aside order passed against plaintiffs and remanded the matter to Trial Court for determination of questions upon framing of issues---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Mol Pakistan Oil and Gas Company through Authorized Officers v. The Islamabad Capital Territory Administration through Chief Commissioner and others 2022 CLD 492; Gemalto Middle East FZ-LLC v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division and others 2020 CLD 151; China Annang Construction Corporation through Project Manager v. K.A. Construction Co. through Attorney 2001 SCMR 1877; Hala Spinning Mills Ltd v. International Finance Corporation and another 2002 SCMR 450; Trek Technologies Limited v. Icondor Telecom (Private) Limited and another 2018 CLD 668 and Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch and others v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Industries and Mineral Development and others PLD 2013 SC 641 ref.