1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance and injunction. The plaintiff claims that he and defendant No,1 executed a sale agreement dated 3-5- 2005 whereby he agreed to purchase from defendant No,1 an open commercial plot of land bearing S. No,476/1, measuring 29315 sq. Ft., situated in Bhittai Homes, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred as the suit plot), against a total sale consideration of Rs,18,321,875 and out of which a sum of Rs,5,600,000 was paid as part payment towards the sale consideration. It was further pleaded in the plaint that, though, the plaintiff has performed his part of obligations but the defendant No,1 has violated and breached the terms of agreement and the defendants started pressurising the plaintiff to make payment of balance sale consideration without obtaining the original title documents from H.D.A. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is not required to tender payment of balance sale consideration before the release of the original title documents from H.D.A. And until the lapse of six months subsequent to the execution of a final sale agreement. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has come to know that an unknown third party is currently in possession of the suit plot and using the same for the purposes of a cattle farm and there is a huge advertising board/hoarding on the suit plot. On the filing of the suit the office has raised the following objection:--- "It appears that the suit commercial plot is situated at Hyderabad and the agreement of sale dated 3-5-2005 between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 was executed at Hyderabad as per Amiexure "A" at pages 21 to 25 and the plaintiff has filed the instant suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Hyderabad as the said commercial plot/inunovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad (paras.1 and 2 of the plaint)."
2. After notice the defendants have filed their counter-affidavit wherein it was stated that the parties are not at issue on any question of law and facts and there is no issue between the parties as the defendants have completed all requirements which were required under the sale agreement and defendant No,1 is ready in all respect to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the plot in question to the plaintiff subject to payment of balance sale consideration. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that clearance/no objection front all concerned authorities including H.D.A./ H.B.C.A. Have been obtained and the copies of all title documents have already been provided to the plaintiff in the month of October/November, 2005 and since then the defendants are requesting the plaintiff that they are ready in all respect to execute sale-deed and to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the suit plot subject to payment of balance sale consideration. In the counter-affidavit the defendants have also denied that any third person is in possession of the suit plot and further submits that the suit plot is lying completely vacant and the same can be inspected at any time if plaintiff so feel by appointing commissioner through this Court and the defendants have no objection on such inspection. Along with the counter-affidavits the defendants have filed a letter from Building Control Department, H.D.A., which shows that H.D.A. Has released the land and has no objection for issuance of sale certificate and a letter from United Bank Limited which shows that dues of U.B.L.
3. Has been paid and the charge created has been withdrawn. In reply to the counter-affidavit no rejoinder has been filed by the plaintiff.
4. On 10-4-2006 the learned counsel for the defendants ha submitted that his clients are ready to perform their part of contractual obligations provided the balance sale consideration be deposited with the Nazir of this Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has declined to accept this offer on the ground that defendants have no proper title and no purpose will be served by depositing the amount in Court and in view of the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff the order of status quo passed on 24-2-2006 was recalled and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter on 15-5-2006 when the matter was came up for hearing Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the defendants, again made a statement that irrespective of the objection raised by the office his client is ready to perform their part of contractual obligations provided the balance sale consideration be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within fifteen days and the suit be decreed and if the plaintiff fails to deposit the amount within the above time the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed to which learned counsel for the plaintiff requested that matter may be kept aside to seek instructions from the plaintiff and his senior. At his request the matter was kept aside and taken up at 12-15 p.m. But neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and matter was adjourned.
5. From the above conduct of the plaintiff it appears that the plaintiff is avoiding to make payment of the balance sale consideration and wants to linger on the proceedings.
6. I have examined the office objection which relates to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As per office note the suit-land is situated at Hyderabad and agreement was also executed at Hyderabad.
7. Mr. Arshad Tayabally, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction the plaint cannot be rejected and same can be returned under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. For filing the same before the competent Court of law.
8. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the defendants, submits that in spite of the fact that the land is situated at Hyderabad and the agreement was also executed at Hyderabad this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and since the parties are not at issue the suit can be decreed specifying the time for payment of sale consideration and execution of sale-deed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Undisputedly the land is situated at Hyderabad and the agreement was also executed at Hyderabad. The plaintiff in para.12 of the plaint submits that defendant No,2 resides at Karachi and part payment of sale consideration was made at Karachi and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 16 of C.P.C. Provides that suits relating to immovable properties to be instituted where subject-matter situate subject to the pecuniary or other limitation prescribed by any law. Section 16 of C.P.C. Regulates the territorial jurisdiction of civil Courts. However, section 120 of C.P.C. Provides that sections 16, 17 and 20 shall not apply to High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Since sections 16, 17 and 20 is not applicable to High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction the High Court can entertain all suits where cause of action had arisen within its local limits of jurisdiction. In the reported case of Messrs Sh. Muhammad Amin & Co. v. The Provincial Industrial Development Corporation 1991 CLC 684 a learned Division Bench of this Court while considering provisions of sections 16, 17, 20 and section 120, C.P.C. Has held as under:-- "... Although the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, the Court will have jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the cause of action has arisen within its local limits of the jurisdiction."
11. In another reported case of Abdul Majid and another v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health and 7 others 1988 CLC 2451 a learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing a suit for possession of land situated in District. Sanghar has held as under:--- "The plain reading of this section would show that the section does not in any way restrict the original civil jurisdiction of a High Court but it on the contrary enlarges the same. This section on the other hand removes the restrictions imposed under sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C. On the jurisdiction of the High Court. "
12. In another reported case of West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Messrs Fateh Textile Mills Limited PLD 1964 (W.P.) Kar. 11 a learned Single Bench of this Court while dealing a suit for possession of a factory situated at Tando Muhammad Khan, District Hyderabad, has held as under:-- "(12) Sections 16, 17 and 20 and clause (12) of the Letters Patent, prescribe the forum and the place for suing. But these sections do not apply to High Court. Section 5 of the High Court of West Pakistan Establishment Order, 1955 and also section 8 of Sindh B Act VII of 1926 do not prescribe the place of suing. Section 5, only saves the jurisdiction of Karachi Bench as exercised by it under section 8 of Sindh Act of 1926. It is my view that the jurisdiction of the High Court has been enlarged rather than restricted by removing altogether the restrictions contained in sections 16, 17 and 20. The Legislature could never have intended to take away the jurisdiction of the West Pakistan High Court (Chief Court of Sindh) altogether, since the High Court got that jurisdiction as a place of suing through these sections. Two alternative conclusions can arise from the non-applicability of sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C. To the High Courts. Firstly that the West Pakistan High Court could not entertain any suit, whatsoever, and secondly, it could entertain suits from all places within its jurisdiction. It is true that all the District Courts except Karachi District Court have no limit prescribed to their pecuniary jurisdiction. The present suit could, therefore, be filed at Hyderabad. The question for decision, however, before me is whether it could not be instituted in the High Court at Karachi.
13. The restrictions prescribed by sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C. Having been removed the original jurisdiction of the High Court is enlarged and it has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit."
14. The effect of section 120, C.P.C. Is to enlarge the jurisdiction instead of its curtailment. The jurisdiction in the present matter cannot be questioned merely on the ground that sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C. Are not applicable. The accrual of cause of action, even partly gives jurisdiction to the Court to proceed with this suit.
15. Following the above judgments the office objection is not sustainable and overruled. The suit is admitted and office is directed to assign number to this suit.
16. From the record of the proceedings it is clear that defendants have not disputed the execution of agreement and receipt of payment and they are also agreed to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance payment. The defendants in para.4 of their counter-affidavit in an unequivocal, clear and unambiguous manner have stated as under:- "That without prejudice to the above legal objection I say that parties are not at issue on any question of law and facts and there is no issue between the parties as the defendants have completed all requirements that were required under the sale agreement and the defendant No,1 is ready in all respect to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiff and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of plot in question to the plaintiff subject to payment of balance sale consideration. In fact plaintiff is avoiding to perform his part of obligation under the sale agreement by not coming forward for payment of balance sale consideration and instead of finalizing the same have filed - this suit without obvious reason to delay the execution of sale- deed."
17. Learned counsel for the defendants in his statements dated 10-4-2006 and 15-5-2006 made before the Court had shown the intention of the defendants to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiff subject to receipt of balance sale consideration.
18. From the above it is clear that parties are not at issue and no purpose will be served by keeping the suit pending. In view of above the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed subject to deposit of balance sal( consideration of Rs,12,721,385 by the plaintiff with the Nazir of this Court within four weeks from the date of this order and on deposit of the amount, as above, the defendants will execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and in case of failure of the plaintiff to deposit the above said amount within four weeks from the date of this order the suit shall stand dismissed with cost without any further orders.
19. The office is directed to prepare the decree.