' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The present petition i.e, C.R. No,864/2007, as also C.R. No,865 of 2007 and C.R. No,866 of 2007, are being disposed of together, as all involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The respondents in these petitions, brought three independent suits for the recovery against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners, who are running the business of travelling agency have promised an Umra package to the respondent of each case, but have not fulfilled the conditions of the package; the suits have been brought at Okara, where one of the respondents (Talat Najeeb Ranjah), resides; the petitioners took up the plea that the entire transaction between the parties, which is in the nature of a contract was negotiated and completed at Lahore, therefore, the civil Court at Okara, has no territorial jurisdiction; the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-6- 2006, accepted this plea and returned the plaint to the respondent of each case, to be presented before an appropriate Court; however, this order dated 26-6-2006, when challenged in appeal, has been interfered and the learned appellate Court has held that it is a matter of evidence that whether the part of cause of action has arisen to the respondents, at Okara, because according to the respondents, some agent of the petitioner had induced the respondents to have the ticket and Umra package from the petitioners at that place.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that primarily the suits for the recovery are based upon a transaction, which totally has its genesis at Lahore; if anybody on behalf of the petitioners, so even has not been impleaded as a party to the suits, has offered the respondents for the package, that by itself did not culminate into a part cause of , action, as not even being an offer envisaged by the law of contract, necessary for the formation of the contract, rather contract has been negotiated and completed at Lahore; even the agent through whom, the respondent claims to have been persuaded to take the package from the petitioners, has not been impleaded as party, so as to confer the territorial jurisdiction upon the Civil Court at Okara on the principle that one of the defendants resides at Okara, therefore, the Court would have the jurisdiction at Okara. I do not thus find this to be a case of such a nature, in, which, any elaborate evidence is needed, resultantly, the order impugned in these petitions is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is upheld.
' In the light of above, all these petitions are allowed.