| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 546 1991 SLD 546 1991 PLD 780 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.59-L of 1991, decision dated: 28-04-1991
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ, AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J
Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo
Civil Petition No.59-L of 1991, decision dated: 28-04-1991
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ, AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J
Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo
WAPDA and 2 others
VS
Mian GHULAM BARI
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------ S. 20, Explanation 11 --- Expression "its sole or principal office"--Significance of word 'or' between the word 'sole' and 'principal'---Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office as well as at any place where it has a subordinate office but in the latter case the cause of action should have arisen at that place.In the second part of the Explanation II to section 20, C.P.C. a scope has been left for filing of the suit at a place where a corporation has a subordinate office provided any cause of action arose at that place. But this part of Explanation is preceded by another alternative; namely, that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on a business at its sole or principal office. The use of the word "or" between the two is very significant. It means that the Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office as well as at any place where it has a subordinate office but in the latter case the cause of action should have arisen at that place. Thus the argument that the Explanation 11 to section 20, C.P.C. should be construed in such a manner so as to provide that in case a cause of action has actually arisen at the location of a branch office of WAPDA, the suit should not be filed with reference to the principal office at Lahore, being too wide to be accepted and also being in negation of the statutory explanation was repelled. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---WAPDA as defendant have sought leave to appeal in a suit for recovery; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent/plaintiff's Civil Revision. The respondent's plaint was returned to him under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. His appeal was dimissed but the Revision was accepted by the High Court on the finding that the Civil Court at Lahore had the requisite jurisdiction to try the' suit. Accordingly, the respondent's Civil Revision was allowed and the case was sent to the said Civil Court for trial on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that…
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