' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Civil Revisions Nos.185 of 2006 and 186 of 2006, are being decided together as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The respondent obtained an electricity connection from the petitioner/ WAPDA installed at its factory premises at Chiniot. The petitioner/WAPDA issued some detection bill to the respondent, which was challenged by it, by filing a declaratory suit before the Civil Court at Faisalabad before whom the bill was challenged and the rendition of accounts and the injunctive relief was also claimed. Along with the suit, an application for the temporary injunction was moved by the respondent; this application when contested by the petitioner, has been allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 10-11-2004; the petitioners challenged this order in appeal but without any success.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the plea that the Civil Court at Faisalabad had not territorial jurisdiction; the learned Civil Judge 2nd Class seized of the matter, lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction as it is a money matter, there is no question of any irreparable loss to the plaintiff, which is one of the ingredients essential for the grant of temporary injunction, therefore, there is no question for the grant of injunctive relief.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the answer has been provided by the judgment reported as Messrs Brady & Co.
(Pakistan) Ltd. v. Messrs Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd., 1981 SCM R 494 and WAPDA and 2 others v.
Mian Ghulam Bari PLD 1991 SC 780, as in both the cases Explanation-II to section 20, C.P.C. Has been considered and it has been held, that the aggrieved party has a right to file the suit against a corporation at its principal office, but in the case of institution of a suit at the subordinate/branch office where a cause of action either wholly or partly should have been arisen obviously, the respondent's principal office is at Faisalabad, resultantly, the suit instituted there was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Faisalabad. For the other plea about pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, it may be held that the plaintiff has the right to fix the value of his suit for declaration and challenged by the other side, the Court seized of the matter, shall decide the issue. But from the written statement of the petitioners, it transpires that no such objection has been raised by the petitioners.
5. For the argument, that as it is a money matter, therefore, there is no question of irreparable loss being suffered by the respondent; suffice it to say, that this is not the absolute rule as it has been answered in Jamil Ahmad v. Provincial Government of West Pakistan and 4 others PLD 1982 Lah.
49.
6. In the light of the above, I do find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders, therefore, these petitions have no merits and are hereby dismissed.