' ABDUL, SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---Appellant-plaintiff sought a declaration by filing a civil suit against the respondents-defendants that special power of attorney dated 17-4-1984 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt., entered at A Serial No,2777 alleged to have been executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant namely Mst. Anwar Sultana in favour of Hafeezullah, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, was based on fraud, illegal, void ab initio. It was further prayed that the attestation of the mutation on the basis of the above stated power of attorney was also illegal.
2. The suit was contested by defendants Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 by filing a Joint written statement.
Besides controverting the case on merits, the respondents-defendants also raised the preliminary objection that the Court at Lahore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property is situated in District Kasur.
' Defendants Nos.4, 9 and 10 were proceeded against ex parte due to nonappearance.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties 12 issues were framed by the trial Court/Civil Judge, Lahore, including the issue about the jurisdiction of the Court at Lahore as Issue No,11, which was as follow:-- "11. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter? OPD."
' The learned Civil Judge decided this issue in favour the plaintiff-appellant, keeping in view the place of execution and registration of the impugned document, i.e, special power of attorney. On the basis of finding on other issues in favour of the appellant-plaintiff the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit by observing that:-- "Special power of attorney Document No,2777 dated 17-4-1984 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. Is declared to be null and void whereas to the extent of rest of the relief the plaintiff will seek remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction."
4. In appeal filed by the respondents-defendants, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment and decree dated 30-4-2002 and the B plaint of the original suit was returned to the appellant-plaintiff for presentation before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. According to the learned Additional District Judge, "under section 16 of C.P.C. For the determination of any right or interest in immovable property suit shall be instituted in the Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated."
According to him," since the immovable property/disputed property situated at Kasur. All matters regarding its rights and interests shall be determined by the Civil Court at Kasur".
5. With reference to section 21, C.P.C., the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there has been no failure of justice by the trial Court. The objection as to the place of suing should have not been accepted by the appellate Court. Further contends that the respondents-defendants reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Lahore Court therefore, under the proviso to section 16, C.P.C. The Civil Court at Lahore had the jurisdiction to decide the suit and that the impugned power of attorney was registered at Lahore therefore, cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff to sue the respondents-defendants by filing a civil suit at Lahore.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that a specific Objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Lahore was raised in the written statement and an issue was framed by the trial Court in this regard and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge rightly returned the plaint to the appellant-plaintiff to present the same before the Court at Kasur in whose jurisdiction the property in dispute is situated.
7. It is well-established principle of law that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all the cases where issues are settled, at or before such a settlement, and unless there has been a consequential failure of justice. The objection of the respondents regarding the territorial jurisdiction would have prevailed in view of section 21 of the C.P,C. Provided the respondents-defendants actually and voluntarily were not residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore Court. I have noted that in the memo. Of appeal the defendants-respondents themselves have given their address of Lahore, meaning thereby that they all reside in the local limits of Civil Court at Lahore. In this view the matter, the learned C Additional District Judge had wrongly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by not keeping in view the proviso to section 16 of the C.P.C. Further the impugned power of attorney was registered at Lahore. The appellant sought declaration that the impugned power of attorney, allegedly executed by Mst. Anwar Sultana, in favour of Ch. Hafeezullah, predecessorin-interest of respondents-defendants Nos.1 to 8, through which the appellant was deprived of the right in property, was registered at Lahore. To my kind, part of cause of action accrued to the appellant at Lahore.
' Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 30-4-2002 of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The case is remanded to the said first appellate Court to decide the same afresh by giving findings on all the issues. The appeal filed by the appellant- plaintiff shall be deemed to be pending, which shall be decided by the appellate Court after issuing notices to the parties. Parties to bear their own costs.