' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 7-2-2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, affirming the judgment/order/decree, dated 18-9-2000, passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby award, dated 18-9-2000 was made rule of the Court.
2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are thatthe respondent was awarded a tender/work for the construction of District Health Officers office and residence, at Jhelum a formal agreement was executed in this context, clause 25-A of the agreement stipulated that in case of dispute, the Superintending Engineering, Provincial Buildings, Circle Gujranwala, would be designated as Arbitrator, difference cropped up between the parties, Arbitration proceedings were initiated and the Arbitrator announced the award on 17-3-1993, the respondent filed an application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act in Civil Courts at Lahore for making award rule of the Court, petitioners/defendants raised objections, including the maintainability of the proceedings at Lahore, the following issue was framed:-- "Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction? OPD"
' The trial Court vide judgment, dated 18-9-2000, allowed the application and made the award, rule of the Court and passed the order/judgment and decree accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal, which after contest was dismissed, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire Court proceedings in Lahore were without jurisdiction, clause 25-A of the agreement was misconstrued, subject-matter of the dispute was at Jhelum, agreement was executed at Jhelum, therefore, the Courts at Jhelum have jurisdiction over the present dispute and the proceedings were wrongly filed at Lahore, thus, they are without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently controverted this position, according to the learned counsel the proceedings were legal. Arbitration proceedings were conducted at Gujranwala and partly at Lahore, therefore, the Courts at Lahore would deem to hold jurisdiction over the proceedings. To substantiate his view-point he referred to section 21, C.P.C. And submitted that even if proceedings were without jurisdiction they cannot be interfered with as there is concurrent findings against the petitioners. He relied upon the following precedents:-
(i) Faqir Muhammad v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Kashmir Affairs Division, Islamabad (2000 SCMR 1312).
(ii) Muhammad Sana Ullah v. Province of Punjab and others (2001 MLD 352.
(iii) Messrs Cooperative Insurance Society v. Messrs Long.View Traders (PLD 2005 Lahore 335).
(iv) Mst. Nichhawar Jan v. Muhammad Farash Khan (1979 CLC 613).
(v) Muhammad Hussain and another v. Muhammad Shafi and others (2004 SCMR 1947).
(vi) S.A. Latif v. Nadir Khan (PLD 1968 Lahore 144).
(vii) Attaullah alias Bilal and others v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (2004 SCMR 830).
(viii)Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCMR 431).
(ix) Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited v. Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Private)
Limited and another (2000 SCMR 1703).
(x) Mian Fazal Muhammad Nizam-ud-Din Baig and Co, v. The Province of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1969 Lahore 453).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of both the Courts below, it clearly emerges from record that the agreement was executed at Jhelum, the work was to be performed within the territory and domain of the Civil Courts of Jhelum, the agreement no doubt reflects that the venue of arbitration proceedings could be the entire Province of Punjab, but could the Courts at Lahore entertain the application and thereafter conduct proceedings in the matter, needs examination. Section 2(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940, reads:-- "Court" means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not, except for the purpose of arbitration proceedings under section 21, include a Small Cause Court.
' Therefore, question of jurisdiction has to be addressed in terms of the subject-matter of the dispute, as is in suits, thus, reference will have to be made to section 20, C.P.C. Which reads:-- "Other suits to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises---Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limit of whose jurisdiction---
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually andvoluntarily 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 defendant 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.
' If both provisions, viz. Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act and section 20, C.P.C. Are read together with the facts of the dispute, it emerges that the subject-matter of the dispute is located in Jhelum, both the parties agree and accept that the agreement was executed at Jhelum, the alleged breaches also accrued at Jhelum, therefore the dispute falls within the territory, domain and jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Jhelum. In contracts usually jurisdiction would vest with the Courts where the agreement was executed or where the subject-matter of the dispute is located, thus, it is clear that the Courts at Jhelum possess jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings. I am fortified in this view from the following precedents:-- ' Messrs Nalanda Ceramic and Industries Ltd. v. Messrs N.S. Choudhry and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (AIR 1977 SC 2142), ' Food Corporation of India and another v. Greet Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 1198).
6. The contention of the learned counsel that this Court cannot interfere in the present matter as there is a concurrent finding is erroneous and without substance, this Court has ample powers to correct errors of jurisdiction and law, the findings are not so sacrosanct, that they cannot be interfered with, especially when, illegality is apparent on record. Ref. Hayat Muhammad and others v. Mazhar Hussain (2006 SCMR 1410). The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable on facts. The proceedings at Lahore were completely without jurisdiction and volatile of sections 2(c) and 31 (3 & 4) of the Arbitration Act. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and the judgment/order/decree of the trial Court is set aside being without jurisdiction. No order as to costs.