| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3271 = 1981 SLD 3271 = 1981 SCMR 494 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 51 and 52 of 1975, decided on 21st January, 1980. (On appeal from the judgments and orders dated 5-3-1974 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 127 and 128 of 1974, respectively).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Noor Ahmed Noorl, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in both the Appeals). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent (in both the Appeals).
Civil Appeals Nos. 51 and 52 of 1975, decided on 21st January, 1980. (On appeal from the judgments and orders dated 5-3-1974 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 127 and 128 of 1974, respectively).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Noor Ahmed Noorl, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in both the Appeals). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent (in both the Appeals).
MESSRS BRADY & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD.--Appellant
VERSUS
MESSRS SAYED SAIGOL INDUSTRIES LTD.-Respondent
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 20
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Omission to raise plea-Plea though urged before High Court but not pressed at leave stage nor leave granted for its consideration-No compelling reason existing for considering plea at leave to appeal stage-Plea (on which leave granted) being regarding non-liability of defendant on ground of no privity of contract existing with plaintiff and such plea not pressed but instead locus stands of plaintiff regarding its identity challenged Such plea neither pressed in High Court nor urged at leave stage nor leave granted on such point-No justification, held, to deal with such plea either. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 20, Explanation II-Suits by or against Corporation-Local juris diction-Corporation can be said to be carrying on business at head office, or at place where its branch exists in respect of a cause of action arising wholly or in part at place where its branch office situated-No part of cause of action arising at place of branch office, Corporation, held, cannot be said to transact business at such place. [Jurisdiction-Cause of action]. Bhola Nath Aggarwal and another v. the Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. A I R 1948 Lah. 56 and Messrs Rahmania Trading Company v. Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. P L D 1960 S C 202 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 20, Explanation 11-Suit by or against Corporation-Jurisdic tion-Explanation 11-Does not control cl. lc) and relates to cis. (a) & (b) only-Conjunction "or"--Separates all three (a), (b) & (c) of S. 20-Situation in a particular case not being covered by cis. (a) & (b), suit could be instituted by virtue of (c) at place where cause of action wholly or in part arose-Party choosing to institute suit at place where only a subordinate office of Corporation exists, would have initially to show cause of action having at is there Location of subordinate office-Does not give plaintiff a choice to institute suit at such place--Law, held, did not recognize loca tion of a subordinate office of Corporation to be converted through a deeming clause into a place where Corporation "carries on…