' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---The appellant awarded contract for the construction of road from Turbat to Mirani. The construction work could not commence due to the policies of the Government. The appellant claimed refund of Rs.3.2 Million deposited by him as security. The respondents got four criminal cases registered against the appellant at Quetta. The appellant was, however, acquitted. The appellant on his acquittal, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20.5 Million as damages against the respondent at Lahore. The respondent filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint. Learned Court instead of deciding the application of the respondent under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Proceeded to return the plaint under Order VII rule 10, C.P.C.
For its presentation to civil Court at Quetta. The appellant challenged the order in a revision petition (C.R. No.1919 of 1998) before this Court. The revision petition was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court with the direction to frame preliminary issues regarding jurisdiction of the Court and learned trial Court after recording evidence, reached the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction and through order dated 16-6-2004, returned the plaint under Order VII, rule 10, for it's presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Order dated 16-6-2004 has been assailed through the instant appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that four F.LRs. Were lodged against the appellant by the respondent at Quetta. The appellant was subsequently acquitted _and the suit for damages for malicious prosecution was filed. The appellant has instituted the suit at Lahore on the basis of agreement/award of contract dated 26-11-1990. The suit for recovery of damages has not been claimed on the basis of rescission of contract dated 26-11-1990 has no direct nexus with the criminal cases, registered against the appellant at Quetta. The cause of action has arisen to the appellant if any, on acquittal from the alleged, false cases. The cause of action has thus arisen to the appellant at the place, where the false cases were registered and thereafter acquitted by the Court. The cases against the appellant were registered at Quetta, the appellant was acquitted by the Court at Quetta and the respondent also resides at Quetta. No part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of civil Court at Lahore, therefore, the trial Court has rightly returned the plaint to the appellant for it's presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no infirmity or Illegality in the impugned order.
4. For the foregoing, this appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly.