| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 335 1993 SLD 335 1993 PLD 395 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.41-Q of 1990, decision dated: 17-01-1993.(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-4-1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in C.M. Appeal No.48 of 1985). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.41-Q of 1990, decision dated: 17-01-1993.(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-4-1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in C.M. Appeal No.48 of 1985). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YASIN and 2 others
VS
Ch. MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ
Law:
Section:
S. 20(c) --- Suit for recovery of amount can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of wbose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose---Plaintiff who was resident of Quetta and had his bwMness at Quetta reached an agreement with the defendants who were residents of Faisalabad for the supply of coal --- Coal was to be dispatched through the Goods Company at Quetta to Faisalabad and after receiving the same payment had to be made ---Part of cause of action having accrued at Quetta suit for recovery of amount could be instituted at Quetta. Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. SA.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for respondent Date of hearing: 17th January, 1993. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--This direct appeal on the acceptance of the respondent/plaintiffs Civil Miscellaneous appeal by the Balochistan High Court raises a question regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Quetta. As stated in the impugned judgment the respondent had filed a suit for recovery of about 1-1/2 lacs as price of coal supply to the appellants. It was pending before a learned Additional District Judge, Quetta when the plaint was returned to the respondent to be presented before a competent Court of jurisdiction. Courts at Quetta, it was said, had no territorial jurisdiction. The coal was to be supplied at Faisalabad, therefore, it was thought that the Faisalabad Courts (Punjab) had the territorial jurisdiction. On appeal before the High Court after noticing sub-clause (c) of section 20, C.P.C. to the effect that a Civil Court where cause of action whole or in part arises, shall also have jurisdiction to try a suit, it was observed as follows:-- "it is clear that as per section 20(c) a suit is to be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose hence the only question which is very pertinent is whether any cause of action as a whole or in part accrued to the plaintiff at Quetta in the case in hand? ... ... ,,,... It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff who is resident of Quetta and has his business at Quetta feached an agreement with the defendants who are residents…
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