IMDAD ALI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PASSCO

ORDER

1. Through this appeal appellant Imdad Ali has challenged the order dated 20‑6‑1996 passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad about the return of the plaint under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case of appellant are that he was employed as Deputy Project Manager, Osta Muhammad under the control and management of respondents Nos. l and 2 viz. Managing Director and General Manager (Adorn.) respectively of Pakistan Agriculture, Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. 4 Lawrence Road, Lahore. During his posting there in the year 1995 he was assigned the job for wheat procurement of the Project Osta Muhammad (Balochistan) of Jacobabad Zone and during the period from May, 1995 to August, 1995, 1,24,808 bags were purchased at the various procurement centres set up by the PASSCO, including the purchase of 27,200 bags at Ali Abad procurement centre of the abovesaid project. On the closing of project in November, 1995 allegation of bogus billing and misappropriation of 3000 bags valuing at Rs.12,30,000 was levelled against appellant which was denied by him but despite of that fact a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. It was this order of respondent No.2 which has been challenged to be illegal, void, mala fide, and without lawful authority. The case of appellant further is that he being resident of Mehar invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Mehar and filed suit for declaration and damages praying that the respondent No.2 was not justified to impose major penalty of removal from service and his action be declared null and void and without lawful authority. Learned Civil Judge, Mehar returned the plaint to present the same before the Court having jurisdiction as the cause of action according to the contents of plaint accrued to the appellant at Jacobabad on 20‑6‑1996. Learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad too returned the plaint under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. for presenting the same before the competent Court having jurisdiction holding that according to section 20, C.P.C. suit can be instituted in the Court where defendant/defendants reside or where cause of action in wholly or in part arises. He has further observed that in the instant case defendants, have their main office at Lahore and their sub‑office at Osta Muhammad where appellant was served order of termination, so cause of action will arise at Lahore and Osta Muhammad to file the suit.

3. Mr. M. Anwar Channa for appellant and Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro on behalf of Add1.A.‑G. have been heard at length.

4. Mr. Channa contends that both the Courts have erred in holding that they had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of appellant. He vehemently urges that appellant was competent to file suit at Jacobabad as it was Jacobabad Zone of Osta Muhammad Project where appellant was lastly posted, therefore, the cause of action arose there to file the suit. He lastly argues that in view of section 19 of C.P.C. appellant was justified to file suit at Jacobabad.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Shoro strenuously opposes the contentions of appellant's counsel and states that learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Jacobabad has passed a proper order and there is no illegality or ambiguity in the said order.

6. It is rightly held by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad that the cause of action to file suit will either arise at Lahore where defendants reside or carry on their business or will arise at Osta Muhammad the sub‑office of respondents where appellant misappropriated wheat and he received order of termination. For proper appraisal about the cause of action it is essential to reproduce section 20, C.P.C.

20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction‑‑

7. "(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit; actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

8. Explanation I.‑‑Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.

9. Explanation II.‑‑A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in (Pakistan) or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."

10. In this matter the cause of action, wholly or in part has either arisen at Lahore where respondents Nos. l . and 2 actually reside and carry on business in an established corporation or at wheat procurement project Osta Muhammad (Balochistan) Jacobabad Zone where appellant committed shortage of wheat of 3000 bags at Ali Abad Centre the sub‑office of the above corporation. Explanation‑II of section 20, C.P.C. is elaborative on this point. The appellant in his entire suit has not mentioned that the above procurement centre had any office at Jacobabad or any business of procurement of wheat was ever done at Jacobabad. He has simply mentioned that cause of action accrued to him on 18‑3‑1996 at his residence village Radhan Taluka Mehar where he received the order of termination. In case of Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1986 CLC 2173) the words "Territorial jurisdiction", "institution of suit‑‑requirements‑‑suit" and words "resides", "carries on business", "works" and "gain" are elaborately discussed.

11. For the above reasons I am of the view that the Court below has taken I view of the matter properly and there is not any justification to interfere with it's opinion. This C. Misc. A. No. 6 of 1996 is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith pending applications.

12. A.A./I/6/K Appeal dismissed.