AZIZ BIBI and others vs AIJAZ ALI and others

ORDER

1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- This is an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Filed by defendants Nos.l, 3, 4, 5 and 7. The defendants have only press the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui states that none of the defendants are resident of Karachi. He states that even the defendants Nos.8 and 9 are not residents of Karachi and their fake addresses were given which can be confirmed from the bailiff reports. He further states that the suit should have been filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Khairpure, as filing the suit directly to the High Court amounts to depriving the parties from the forum of appeal available at the District Judge level. On the other hand, the plaintiffs filed counter-affidavit and opposed the application. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that the defendants Nos.9 and 10 were residents of Karachi. He further states that Muhammad Sharif was expired at Karachi on 10-5-1999 at Hamdard University Hospital, Taj Medical Complex, Karachi, and the part of cause of action is accrued at Karachi. He further submitted that even if all the defendants are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and if cause of action or part thereof is accrued at Karachi the suit was rightly filed. Mr. Abdul Majeed in support of his contentions referred to paras 17 to 19 of the plaint to show that part of cause of action was accrued at Karachi. Mr. Abdul Majeed referred to section 20 of C.P.C. And relied upon the case of Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Shaukat Zamer Khan 1999 CLC 954 in support of his contention that a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case where a part of cause of action arises within the local limits of its jurisdiction. In an other judgment Messrs Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.D.B.P. 1993 M LD 1031, wherein it was held that in order to determine the territorial jurisdiction at initial stage, it is only the contents of the plaint which arc to be seen and be admitted as correct.

2. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this matter the issues were framed on 4-4-2005 and issue with regard to maintainability of the suit as well as territorial jurisdiction of the Court has been framed. Furthermore, as provided under section 120, C.P.C, the provisions of sections I6 to 20 are not applicable to the High Court in the exercise of its Original Civil Jurisdiction. In a case reported as Abdul Majid v. Government of Pakistan 1988 CLC 2451, it was held that section 120 does not restrict the original civil jurisdiction of High Court but it on the contrary enlarges the same. This section on the other hand removes the restrictions imposed under sections I6, 17 and 20, C.P.C, on the jurisdiction of the High Court. For the purpose of determining the application under Order Vll, rule 10, C.P.C, the contents of the plaint are to be taken on its face value.

3. From the contents of the plaint it is clearly spelt out that, part of cause of action for filing the suit was accrued at Karachi and some of the defendants at the time of filing of the suit were residents of Karachi. For the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction the facts pleaded in the plaint are sufficient.

4. ' I, therefore, dismissed the application under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. With no order as to costs.