| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2782 = 2010 SLD 2782 = 2010 MLD 1015 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 858 and C.M.A. No. 9829 of 2005, decided on 7th May, 2010.
Presented By: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J
Suit No. 858 and C.M.A. No. 9829 of 2005, decided on 7th May, 2010.
Presented By: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J
SALEEM MEHTAB---Plaintiff
VERSUS
Messrs REFHAN BEST FOOD LTD. COMPANY through Chief Executive and 9 others---Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.10---Return of plaint---Coram non judice---Scope---Provision of O. VII, R.10, C. P. C. was mandatory in nature---Adjudication by a court without jurisdiction was a determination coram non judice---Plaint was to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Messrs Kadir Motors (Regd.), Rawalpindi v. Messrs National Motors Ltd. Karachi 1992 SCMR 1174; State Life Insurance Corporation v. Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCMR 393; E.F.U. General Insurance Ltd. v. Fahimul Haq 1997 CLC 1441 and Chaudhry Mehtab Ahmed and another v. Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman and 4 others 2004 MLD 662 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.10---Return of plaint---Jurisdiction---Question of---Where parties were at issue regarding jurisdiction, it was necessary that court should decide the question first in order to determine where the court had jurisdiction; the suit was rightly framed or instituted. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R.10---Return of plaint---Institution of action---Agreement---Competency of court---Effect---If the parties had agreed that suit was to be filed in a particular court and the suit was filed in another court, the proper course for the court was to return the plaint for presentation to the court agreed upon by the parties. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 20(c) & O. VII, R.10---Territorial jurisdiction---Determination of---Effect---Validity of an agreement by which the parties preferred one of two courts depended upon the fact that both the courts must have jurisdiction to decide the matter---Had the parties not chosen the territorial jurisdiction of particular court in the agreement, the territorial jurisdiction could have been determined in view of S.20(c) C.P.C., which provided a right to sue at any place on account of cause of action in whole or in part. Mehfooz Yar Khan for Plaintiff. Muhammad Muzaffar for Defendants. ORDER MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The plaintiff has filed this suit for Recovery of Outstanding Claims and Damages with the following prayer: "It is most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the plaintiff above named that this…