Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMADSULEMAN VS Respondent: PAK FEED INDUSTRIES
1988 C L C 1398
1988 C L C 1398
[Lahore] Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
Messrs PAK FEED INDUSTRIES‑‑Respondent
Transfer Application No.247‑C and Civil Miscellaneous No.1892 of 1988, decided or. 17th April, 1988.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 20(b)(c)‑‑Jurisdiction of Court‑‑Filing of suit‑‑Requirement as to jurisdiction‑‑Suit could be filed by plaintiff at a place where defendant resided or before Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction cause of action had arisen in his favour wholly or in part‑‑Petitioner/defendant although residing at place 'L' received goods from respondent /plaintiff at place 'G'‑‑Cause of action in favour of plaintiff /respondent, held, arose within local limits of Court at place 'G' in circumstances.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑S . 20(b)‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Suit against defendant could be filed, either at the place where such defendant resided or where cause of action wholly or in part had arisen.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑Ss. 20(b)(c) & 24‑‑Jurisdiction of Courts, determination of‑ Transfer of civil suit‑‑Question whether goods in dispute were supplied by respondent to petitioner at place 'G' or at place 'L' being question of fact required to be determined judicially, after recording evidence‑ High Court dealing with petition for transfer of case refrained from expression any opinion in that respect‑‑If petitioner wanted to take exception to jurisdiction of Court at place 'G' he could do so by filing written statement containing a plea in that regard and until recording of judicial finding in that respect Court at place 'G' could try suit in view of averments made in plaint and in light of clause (c) of S.20 C.P.C.‑‑Mere fact that petitioner/ defendant was residing at place 'L', would not justify transfer of suit from place 'G'.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑S.24‑‑Transfer of civil suit‑‑Petitioner's own plea that Court hearing suit against him lacked jurisdiction‑‑Petition for transfer of suit, held, was not entertainable in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in PLD 1971 SC 247 that "suit could only be transferred from a Court of competent jurisdiction".
Mst. Razia Shafi v. Major M.S. Malik PLD 1971 S C 247 ref.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
ORDER
This is a petition for transfer of a civil suit brought by the respondent Messrs Pak Feed Industries, Gujranwala against the petitioner, Muhammad Suleman, in the Court of Sh. Ahmad Farooq, Civil Judge, Gujranwala.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, resided in Lahore the suit should have been filed against him at Lahore. In this connection. reliance was placed by him on clause (b) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent had instituted the suit at Gujranwala with a view to causing harassment to the petitioner.
3. It is true that in view of clause (b) `of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent could file suit against the petitioner at Lahore but clause (c) thereof also authorised him to file the suit before a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action had arisen in his favour, wholly or in part. It has been A stated by the respondent in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the plaint that the petitioner received goods from it at Gujranwala and thus the cause of action arose in favour of the respondent within the local limits of the Courts of Gujranwala. With reference to this averment of the respondent, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner received goods from the respondent at Lahore and not at Gujranwala. The question whether the goods were supplied to the petitioner at Gujranwala or at Lahore is a question of fact which requires to be determined judicially, after recording evidence. I would, therefore, not like to express any opinion, at this stage, while dealing B with the instant petition for transfer of the case. If the petitioner wants to take exception to the jurisdiction of the Court of Gujranwala, which is now seized of the suit, he would be well‑advised to do so' by filing written statement containing a plea in this regard. Until judicial finding is recorded as aforesaid holding that the said learned
Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, he can try the suit in view of the averments made in the plaint and in the light of clause (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioner resides at Lahore does not justify the transfer of suit from Gujranwala.
4. It has been held in Mst. Razia Shaft v. Major M.S. Malik PLD 1971 SC 247 that a suit can be transferred from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Since it is the petitioner's own plea that the Court now hearing the suit against him, lacks jurisdiction to do so, this petition is not entertainable in view of the law laid down in the cited case.
5. Looked from any angle, this petition fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
H . B . T . ‑/ M‑699/ L Petition dismissed