' Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for rendition of account against the petitioner before the learned Judge Banking Court No,1, Multan, where an objection was raised by the petitioner with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of Clause 13.02(C) of the lease agreement which contemplate that all disputes arising between the parties shall be dealt with by the appropriate Courts at Rawalpindi. This objection of the petitioner was overruled by the Judge Banking Court vide order dated 12-11-2007 which is being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties to the agreement had agreed to resolve their dispute from the appropriate Courts at Rawalpindi, where the head office of the petitioner is situated, therefore, in terms of the said agreement which was also executed at Rawalpindi, the appropriate Courts at Rawalpindi on account of agreement between the parties were the proper Courts to adjudicate upon the matters arising out of the agreement.
3. In support of his contention he has relied upon State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v.
Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCM R 393; Zaib Cold Storage and Ice Factory through Sole Proprietor and another v. Messrs Pakistan Industrial Leasing Corporation Limited (PILCORP) 2006 CLD 67 and Banking Equity Ltd. v. Iqas Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
2001. CLC 169.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that cause of action had arisen as a whole in Multan, petitioner having his head office at Rawalpindi is also carrying business in Multan, the entire transaction had taken place in Multan, the vehicle in question was handed over and thereafter taken into possession at Multan, instalments were also being paid by the respondents at Multan and even a partial cause of action had not arisen at Rawalpindi. It is also added that parties can neither confer nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as 1987 SCM R 393 is reproduced for advantage:-- "It is evident from a plain reading of these provisions that there is no absolute exclusion of jurisdiction under section 9 or section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor there is any violation of the provisions of section 28 of the Contract Act when two or more courts have jurisdiction to try a suit and the parties mutually agree to choose or take their dispute to one of them. The Civil Courts exercise their jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. If they do not possess such jurisdiction under the Code it cannot be conferred on them through a mutual agreement of the parties to a dispute. But in a situation where two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, then an agreement between the parties that any dispute arising between them shall be tried only by one of such Courts could not be considered contrary to public policy as it would neither contravene the provisions laid down in section 28 of the. Contract:Act nor would it violate in any manner the provisions of section 9 or section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
7. Crux of the matter resolved by their Lordships in the Honourable Supreme is that if under the law two or more Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain a lis under an agreement then the parties to the agreement can by mutual settlement decide to get the lis resolved from one of those Courts who have the jurisdiction. It is also resolved by their lordships that if the Court agreed by the parties is not having jurisdiction under the law, then the parties by mutual consent cannot confer jurisdiction on such Court. In the case 2006 CLD 67, the lease agreement was signed at Lahore, therefore, it was observed that a partial cause of action had arisen at Lahore as well apart from Sialkot, therefore, their Lordships in the Division Bench were of the view that by agreement parties could agree to resolve their disputes in the Courts at Lahore. Similar is the view of the learned Single Judge in case 2001 CLC 169 who is author of the judgment of 2006 CLD 67.
8. In the instant case, we have gone through the agreement which was claimed by the petitioner to have been executed at Rawalpindi, the same does not show of its execution at Rawalpindi rather it indicates that the same was executed and signed at Multan. All other necessary ingredients of section 20 of the C.P.0 and as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents had also taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Multan Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out anything which could even remotely suggest that any partial cause of action had taken place at Rawalpindi.
9. For what has been stated above, we hold that since none of the ingredients of section 20 are available in the instant case by way of which it could be said that Courts at Rawalpindi had the jurisdiction to entertain the lis between the parties to the agreement, therefore, clause 13.02(C) of the agreement cannot be enforced under the law. The condition precedent to make a choice from among two or more Courts of one Court by the parties through an agreement is thus that all the Courts including the one chosen by the parties has the jurisdiction A under the law. If the chosen Court does not qualify this test of jurisdiction, then such agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on such Court Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.