' With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, this case is being treated as "Pacca Case".
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs,6,70,000 against the petitioner before the Civil Court at Multan.
' According to facts pleaded in the plaint, the petitioner/respondent sold her landed property, situated in Tehsil Mailsi District Vehari, to the petitioner. Some amount was paid in cash, while, balance was paid to her through two cheques issued by the petitioner to be drawn on Muslim Commercial Bank, Adda Hurry Minor, Tehsil Mailsi. The respondent/plaintiff presented these cheques in her account of Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Hassan Abad Branch, Multan. The same were dishonoured, therefore, the instant suit was filed at Multan. The petitioner after having been served filed an application under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. For the return of plaint, on the ground that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Multan, therefore, the plaint may be returned to the respondent. This application was contested by the respondent.
However, the learned trial Court vide order dated 27-1-2001, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. This order was assailed by the petitioner through a revision before this Court bearing C.R.
No,241 of 2001. On account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judges, the same was remitted back and the same was ultimately dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, vide order dated 12-3-2004. Both these orders are being assailed through the instant Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that nowhere in the body of the plaint anything is mentioned so as to ascertain the fact as to whether any cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Multan, therefore, the plaint deserves to be returned to the plaintiff/respondent.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that an interim order passed by the learned trial Court maintained in the revisional jurisdiction is not open to challenge in Constitutional jurisdiction. Relies on 1991 SCM R 970. It is further argued that since the disputed cheques were issued within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts of Multan, therefore, Civil Court at Multan had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit. It is finally argued that the suit is still at premature stage as the petitioner has not so far submitted his written statement, therefore, the application under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. Is premature.
5. As a right of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to PLD 2001 SC 518, to contend that if an order passed in revisional jurisdiction is tainted with jurisdictional error, the Constitutional jurisdiction can be exercised to correct the wrong.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The relevant para of the plaint where the factum of accruing of cause of action is disclosed is para.6, which is reproduced for ready reference:- ' In this para. The respondent has not specifically pleaded that the disputed cheques were issued to her within the territorial jurisdiction of Multan Civil Courts, therefore, the argument being put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is an afterthought. Otherwise, the property in dispute situates in Mailsi, the Bank.For which the cheques were issued is also situated in Mailsi, the said cheuqes were dishonoured by the said Bank in Mailsi. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the cause of action, if any, had arisen to the respondent within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Mailsi and not at Multan.
8. So far as maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, since, patently, it appears that the Civil Court at Multan is exercising jurisdiction in a suit, in which it does not have any power because of lack of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to remain in field.
Resultantly, the law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be applicable in the instant case. The net result is that this writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned two Courts below are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Resultantly, the learned trial Court shall pass an appropriate order for the return of the plaint for its presentation before the proper Court. Disposed of. No order as to costs. accordingly.