1. ' Through present suit plaintiff Habib Bank Limited wants Co recover the amount advanced as credit facility by its branch at Deira Dubai, UAE to Messrs Spectrum Commercial Films Traders LLC, Dubai in June, 1997. The credit package was of AET 3.55 million which included OD and TR Limit of AET 0.750 million. Defendant Ali Muhammad son of Agha Muhammad Hussain is claimed to have executed promissory note in favour of Habib Bank Limited as guarantor promising thereby to pay on demand the amount of AET 3.550 million with interest of 11% per annum. He is also stated to have executed a letter of guarantee in favour of Habib Bank Limited at Deira Dubai, UAE.
2. ' It is claimed that the borrower after making part payments failed to discharge its liability fully by repayment of the amount' according to the terms of the facility and the bank filed Case No,272/2000 Crown Plenary against it for recovery of DHS 1,094,139.47 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit was decreed for the above-mentioned amount with interest from 15-5-2000 at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. ' On 27-11-2002 HBL filed present suit before this Court against Ali Muhammad the guarantor for recovery of UAE Durham, 1,393,564.25 stating that the decree passed by the Court at Dubai was not satisfied, therefore, necessity arose to file the suit against the guarantor who had shifted to Karachi.
4. ' After service on the defendant through publication this Court ordered on 26-1-2004 the proceedings to go against him ex parte directing the plaintiff to file evidence as ex parte proof. The plaintiff then filed affidavit of its principal officer and attorney Ghazi Amin Pervez in evidence annexing with it the documents said to have been executed by the defendant as guarantor and the judgment of Court at Dubai.
5. ' Arguments of plaintiff's counsel on the question of jurisdiction have been heard. He contended that although the suit relates to the transactions having taken place in a foreign country under the law of that State and default was also committed there but after plaintiffs failure to get the decree of Dubai Court satisfied cause of action accrued to him for suing the defendant (guarantor) in Pakistan as by that time he had shifted to Pakistan. The learned counsel further contended that section 9, Civil Procedure Code authorizes the Court of civil jurisdiction in Pakistan to try all suits of civil nature and section 20 Civil Procedure Code specifies the Court having jurisdiction over the particular civil suit or suits. It requires the suit to be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen wholly or partly or the defendant resides or carries on business. As the plaintiff has its head office at Karachi and the defendant also resides there, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel refers to decision of this Court in case of Nadeem Ghani v. United Bank Limited and others reported in 2001 CLC 1904.
6. The contentions of the learned counsel are completely devoid of substance. Admittedly the transaction/contract had taken place at Dubai and the alleged default also occurred there. Even the plaintiff had filed a suit there under the law of that State and obtained a judgment, thus there can be no denial of the fact that the transaction was governed by the law of that country/State and forum to enforce the rights and obligations in consequence of the transaction was also available there.
7. ' Civil Procedure Code extends upto the territories of Pakistan as a procedural enactment. It cannot take place of substantive laws on a particular subject. Obviously the transactions and acts governed by the procedural as well as substantive law of any other State or country do not come within the scope of our Civil Procedure Code. Nor the Courts at Pakistan have jurisdiction to decide the causes and issues governed by the law of any other country or State applying sections 9 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code which relate to the cases and matters within the cognizance of Courts in Pakistan.
8. ' As the contract/transactions which is the subject-matter of present suit is governed by procedural and substantive laws of Dubai and statutory forum to decide the controversy and enforce the rights under those transactions is also available there, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, for the only reason that the defendant had allegedly shifted to Karachi.
9. The Courts at Dubai do not lose their authority or competency to proceed with the suit against him.
10. Nor the Courts at Pakistan get jurisdiction over the matter for that reason.
11. ' The pronouncement referred to by the counsel of the plaintiff is a decision by Single Judge, which in the light of views expressed and conclusion recorded above, fails to persuade me to concur with it.
12. It also deserves to be expressed here that the plaintiff has not stated the actual terms of the contract of credit facility in the plaint nor he has produced the documents containing the terms of the contract. Also, undisputedly it did not sue the guarantor while filing suit/claim against the principal borrower. It is not known what prevented it from suing the guarantor, whether there was any impediment in its way under the relevant laws of the State i,e, Dubai. The effect of omission to sue the guarantor is also not known. Thus the present suit is also not a fair and bona fide exercise on the part of the plaintiff. However, after recording the conclusion about the jurisdiction the other questions remain only of academic interest.
13. ' For the above, plaintiff's suit is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Although strong waves have come in my mind to penalize the plaintiff for filing a frivolous suit but keeping in view the presence of decision referred to by the learned Advocate I refrain from doing so. Consequently, the suit is dismissed.