' FAISAL ARAB, J.---Plaintiffs claim to be the owners of Survey Nos.367 and 368 both comprising of 42 acres and 21 ghuntas in Deh Babur Band, Tapo Hathal Bhat, Taluka Thano Bula Khan, District Jamshoro. The case of the plaintiffs is that EDO Revenue, Jamshoro, the defendant No,3, at the instance of Mst. Aisha Siddiqui, the defendant No,1 and on the direction of the Chief Secretary of Sindh, the defendant No,2, cancelled the Entry No,193 vide order dated 26-3-2009 on the basis of fraudulent demarcation, thereby treating the defendant No,1 to be the owner of the suit property.
The plaintiffs challenged the cancellation of entry in Constitutional petition No,D-149 of 2009 in the Circuit Court, Hyderabad, which was disposed of on 26-5-2009 on the ground that since the entries in favour of the plaintiffs have been cancelled, the plaintiffs may avail legal remedy before the appropriate forum. The plaintiffs then filed Appeal No, SROA-79 of 2009 before the Member, Board of Revenue (Land Utilization), Sindh, Karachi, which was allowed on 2-7-2009 and entry No,193 was restored to its original position. The plaintiffs then challenged the demarcation before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh Karachi.
2. The plaintiffs then filed this suit in the Court claiming that the defendant No,1 has attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs.
3. On the other hand, the case of defendant No,1 is that the land that is claimed by the plaintiffs to be theirs is part of the land that was purchased by defendant No,1 from Meehan and Abdul Ghaffar Billo by a registered sale deed dated 9-2-1995 and therefore the claim of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
4. During the hearing of interlocutory application, learned counsel for the defendant No,1, Mr. Kamal Azfar argued that as the subject matter of despute is immovable property located in District Kotri therefore, this suit is not maintainable on the Original Side of this Court. He argued that the original civil jurisdiction of this Court is confined only to such disputes which can be filed within the territorial limits of Karachi and the present suit is liable to be returned to the plaintiff for its presentation before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction as envisaged under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. In support of his arguments he relied upon the cases of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton & General Trading Co. (PLD 1961 Karachi 565), West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Messer Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 1964 Kar. 11), Haji Razak v. Usman (PLD 1975 Kar.
944), Province of Sindh v.Haji Razak (1991 SCMR 920), Mian Akbar Hussain v. Mst. Aishabai (PLD 1991 SC 985), Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Nisar Rice Mills. Lahore (1993 CLC 1627), Haji Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Anwar Khan (2003 SCMR 990) and Murlidhar P. Gangwani v. Engineer Aftab Islam Agha (2005 MLD 1506).
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Khawaja Shams-ulIslam on the other hand argued that the defendant No,1 is resident of Karachi and so also the plaintiffs and the impugned order was also passed in Karachi and by virtue of Section 120 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 16 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code have been made inapplicable to the High Court, therefore, the suit is very much maintainable in this Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon PLD 1969 Karachi 646, PLD 1987 SC 145, PLD 1987 Karachi 535, PLD 1996 Lahore 528, PLD 1983 SC 46, 2009 MLD Karachi 1311, 2006 SCMR 1262, 2003 YLR Karachi 42, PLD 1961 Karachi 565, PLD 1964 Karachi 11, PLD 1975 Karachi 944, 1991 SCMR 920, PLD 1991 SC 985, 1993 CLC Karachi 1627, 2003 SCMR 990, 2005 MLD 1506, PLD 1958 SC 437, 1995 MLD Karachi 283, 2005 CLC Karachi 931 and 1993 SCMR 2330.
6. Both the learned counsel also extensively argued on the merits of the applications. However, as the objection taken by learned counsel for defendant No,1 attacks the very jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this suit on its Original Side, this Court deemed it appropriate to decide the question of jurisdiction first, without touching upon the merits of the interlocutory applications.
7. The question which needs to be examined is what is the effect of section 120 of Civil Procedure Code which provides that in exercise of original civil jurisdiction by the High Court, the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code shall not be applicable. In other words, whether the effect of section 120 of Civil Procedure Code is to confer powers on this High Court to entertain suits and proceedings of civil nature on its Original Side if the same pertain to any area falling within its territorial limits. In order to examine this question I shall proceed to examine the effect to section 120 of Civil Procedure Code on the exercise of original civil jurisdiction by this High Court.
8. Of all the High Courts of this country, only the High Court of Sindh has been conferred with the powers to exercise original civil jurisdiction i.e, to entertain suits and proceedings of civil nature.
This original civil jurisdiction that is conferred on this High Court is not exercisable in its entire territorial limits but only for the territorial limits of Karachi. The history of conferring original civil jurisdiction shows that it was first conferred when under section 2 of Bombay Act No,1 of 1906 Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sindh was established. Section 2 of Bombay Act, 1906 reads as under: "There shall be for the Province a Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sindh (hereinafter called the Court of the Judicial Commissioner) which shall be the highest Court of Appeal in civil and criminal matters in the said Province and which shall be the District Court and Court of Session of Karachi.
9. Then the Court of the Judicial Commissioner became Chief Court of Sindh and under section 8 of the Sindh Courts Act, 1926 which became effective from 1940, the original civil jurisdiction was exercised by the erstwhile Chief Court of Sindh. The Chief Court of Sindh then became. High Court of Sindh. When the High Court of Sindh became a Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, this original civil jurisdiction was conferred on it under paragraph 5 of the Establishment of West Pakistan High Court Order, 1955. Lastly, the original civil jurisdiction was conferred on this Court under section 7 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 (II of 1962). The paragraph 5 of the Establishment of West Pakistan High Court Order, 1955 and section 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 are reproduced below.
Para 5 of the Establishment of West Pakistan High Court Order, ,1955.
5. Original civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Bench at Karachi-Notwithstanding anything in the Order or in any other law for the time being in force, the Bench of the High Court at Karachi shall have the same original civil jurisdiction for the civil district of Karachi and .The same criminal jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Session for the Sessions Division of Karachi, as were exercisable, immediately before the commencement of this Order, by the Chief Court of Sindh under section 8 of the Sindh Courts Act, 1926 (Sindh Act VII of 1926): Provided that the Governor-General may by notification in the official Gazette direct that, as from a specified date such jurisdiction and powers as are mentioned therein shall cease to be exercisable by that Bench and as from that date Bench shall cease to exercise that jurisdiction and powers."
Section 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.
7. Original jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge.---Subject to this Ordinance or any law for the time being in force, the original jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge in civil suits and proceedings shall be without limit of the value thereof excepting in the Karachi District where the original jurisdiction in civil suits and proceedings of the value exceeding thirty lacs of rupees shall be exercised by the High Court.
10. Thus since 1906 the Highest Court of this Province has been exercising powers of original civil jurisdiction by functioning as the principal Civil Court for the district of Karachi (presently covering all districts of Karachi) where suits and proceedings of civil nature relating to any territorial limit of Karachi are entertained subject always to the pecuniary limit that is prescribed for such cases from time to time. To function as principal Civil Court for Karachi, Original Side was created in this Court at its principal seat where civil suits and proceedings are filed, heard and decided.
11. The laws which conferred original civil jurisdiction on this High Court clearly show that civil suits and proceedings of certain pecuniary value, which otherwise could only be filed in the District Courts of Karachi, became entertain able on the Original Side of this High Court. These laws in effect fixed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts of Karachi and beyond such pecuniary limit the jurisdiction was conferred to the Original Side of this Court. Except for the territorial limits of Karachi, no other area of Sindh was ever brought under the ambit of the original civil jurisdiction. It is for this reason that the Civil Courts falling beyond the districts of Karachi continue to exercise original civil jurisdiction of unlimited jurisdiction whereas the Civil Courts in the districts of Karachi exercise jurisdiction only to the extent which is lesser in value than that conferred on the Original Side of this High Court. Thus, it is quite evident that conferment of original civil jurisdiction on this Court throughout its history was confined to the territorial limits of Karachi provided always that the cause was of a prescribed amount and value.
12. The history of exercising original civil jurisdiction by certain High Courts of the sub-continent is much prior to the conferment of this jurisdiction on the Court of Judicial Commissioner in 1906 under section 2 of Bombay Act, 1906.The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were conferred with this jurisdiction much prior to conferment of this jurisdiction to this Court. The Bombay High Court was conferred original civil jurisdiction way back in 1863. The laws which confer original civil jurisdiction on the High Courts and the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code were bound to overlap each other, as the former calls for a suit to be filed on the Original Side of a High Court whereas sections 16 to 20 determine the Civil Court where suit is to be entertained. Keeping this in mind, section 120 of Civil Procedure Code was enacted. Section 120 of C.P.C. Reads as follows:--
120. Provisions not applicable to High Court in original civil jurisdiction.--(1) The following provisions shall not apply to High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, namely sections 16, 17 and 20.
13. A bare reading of Section 120 of Civil Procedure Code show that firstly it makes sections 1617 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code inapplicable for the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
The need to make sections 16, 17 and 20 of CPC inapplicable to a High Court arose because the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under sections 16, 17 and 20 CPC and the original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts under the then Letters Patent determine separate places where a civil suit and proceedings could be filed. Section 120 of C.P.C. Was enacted to settle the conflict of sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. With the laws that conferred original civil jurisdiction on the High Courts and to obviate any confusion as regards place of suing. This can be understood through an example.
Ordinarily a suit relating to a dispute of immovable property situated in Saddar, Karachi is to be brought in the Civil Court, which under the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code has jurisdiction to try such suit. As the area of Saddar in Karachi falls within the limits of Police Station, Saddar which is in District East, Karachi, therefore the Civil Court which can try suits of area falling in Police Station Saddar becomes the place where such a suit is to be filed when sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Procedure Code are applied. However, if the same suit is of a value, which is more than three million rupees then by virtue of section 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 the place of suing shifts to the Original Side of this High Court. In order to overcome this overlapping of jurisdictions, provisions of sections 16 and 17 of C.P.C. Were made inapplicable under section 120 of C.P.C. So that these provisions may not come in the way of filing a civil suit or proceedings on the Original Side of this Court. Therefore, while entertaining a suit relating to immovable property emanating from the area of Saddar in Karachi having a value of more than three million rupees, the place of suing as determined under sections 16 and 17 of the C.P.C. Becomes immaterial and is not to be considered as under section 7 of the Sindh Civil Court Ordinance 1962, the Original Side of this High Court becomes the place of suing. Section 120 of C.P.C. Can be interpreted only in this manner and not in a manner that any suit of more than three million rupees in value, coming from any part of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court viz. The entire Province of Sindh can be entertained on the Original Side of this Court. If the interpretation as given to section 120 of C.P.C. By the learned counsel for the plaintiff is accepted then every suit of a value above three million rupees relating to any part of Sindh has to be entertained on the Original Side of this Court. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose that created original civil jurisdiction in this High Court for the Districts of Karachi. While interpreting section 120 of C.P.C., the meaning of the words "in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction" appearing in that section should not be lost sight of which clearly mean that place of suing is not to be determined by sections 16, 17 and 20 but by the provision which confer original civil jurisdiction on this High Court. Now original civil jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under section 7 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 which is limited only for the territorial limits of Karachi. No other territory of this High Court comes within the ambit of the original civil jurisdiction prescribed under section 7 of the 1962 Ordinance. Therefore, if a suit does not fall within the ambit of original civil jurisdiction of this High Court then certainly the place of suing for such a suit is to be determined under sections 16 to 20 of Civil Procedure Code. What is actually meant by inapplicability of sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. To High Court under section 120 of C.P.C. Is that High Court shall not apply these provisions to a suit if it comes under the ambit of section 7 of 1962 Ordinance i.e, sections 16, 17 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code shall not apply if a suit pertains to any part of the four Districts of Karachi and is valued at more than three million rupees.
On the other hand, if a suit is filed in this Court which does not fall within the original civil jurisdiction of this Court i.e, it does not pertain to a dispute relating to any of the four Districts of Karachi or in not of a prescribed value then certainly the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 shall be attracted and the plaint shall be returned for its presentation to a Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Section 120 of Civil Procedure Code therefore only renders ineffective provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. To suits that can be entertained by this High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction which is confined to civil suits and proceedings pertaining to the Districts of Karachi only and not for any other area falling within the jurisdiction of this High Court.
14. While discussing the real meaning and intent of section 120 of the Civil Procedure Code, it could occur in one's mind as to why only sections 16, 17 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code have been made inapplicable when the place of suing is also determined by sections 18 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Code. The reasons are these. Taking up section 18 of C.P.C. First, it provides that where there is uncertainty as to the local limits of two or more Courts and a suit is filed in anyone of them then upon its disposal, the decree would be regarded as if it was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The object of enacting section 18 of Civil Procedure Code is to treat a decree passed by a Court to be legally valid even though there was confusion as to Courts' local limits and subsequently the uncertainty of limits is resolved and the area is found not be within the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree. In order not to disturb this legal position as envisaged by section 18 of Civil Procedure Code and not to render such decree a nullity, the provisions of section 18 of Civil Procedure Code were not made inapplicable under section 120 of Civil Procedure Code. Thus a suit valued at more than three million rupees even if it is filed on the Original Side of this Court on account of uncertainty of local limits and this Court decrees the suit then the decree would still be treated as valid and passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction though subsequently the uncertainty is resolved and the area to which the suit related is found to be part of Thatta. Thus, to keep such decree valid, Section 18 of Civil Procedure Code has not been made inapplicable to the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court under section 120 of Civil Procedure Code.
15. Section 19 of C.P.C. On the other hand gives an option to the plaintiff to sue for his claim for compensation for wrong done to him or to his movable property at the place where the wrong was done as well as at the place where defendant resides as provided in the illustrations to section 19 of Civil procedure Code. Now section 19 of Civil Procedure Code has not been made inapplicable to the original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts under section 120 of Civil Procedure Code for the reason that legislature intended that options for the place of suing provided therein should not be taken away and remain available with the plaintiff. However, if one of the two options provided in section 19, C.P.C. Is exercised in a manner that suit of a category falling under section 19, C.P.C., i.e, claim for compensation for wrong done to him or to his movable property is to be filed in Karachi then such a suit can be competently filed on the original side of the Court provided only if the amount or value of subject-matter of dispute is of prescribed value. Therefore, for these reasons i.e, to keep the options as to place of suing open for the plaintiff in suits relating to his claim for compensation for wrong done to person or to movable property, the provisions of section 19, C.P.C.
Have not been made inapplicable to the Original Civil jurisdiction of this Court under section 120 of Civil Procedure Code.
16. The above view of mine with regard to the extent of the powers of this High Court to exercise original civil jurisdiction in suits and proceedings is further fortified from the view taken in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton & General Trading Company reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 referred to by Mr. Kamal Azfar, which is authored by an eminent Judge of this Court Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed. Justice Wahiduddin at pages 575 and 576 held as follows: Pages 575 and 576 " The history of the establishment of the High Courts in the subcontinent shows that there were only three Courts which were conferred ordinary original civil jurisdiction within certain limits under their Letters Patent. No other High Court established under the High Court Act of 1861 or under the Government of India Act, 1915 or under the Government of India Act, 1935 was invested with powers of ordinary civil jurisdiction. The Chief Court of Sindh was no doubt a High Court within the meaning of section 219 of the Government India Act, but the jurisdiction which it exercised in the civil district of Karachi was not that of an ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court but it was only performing the duties of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the district of Karachi under a special statute viz section 8 of Sindh Court Act, 1926."
' Then at page 577 Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed held as follows; "I have not the slightest doubt on the language of section 8 of Sindh Act, 1926 and the definition of 'District in section 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, that it was exercising District Court jurisdiction in contradistinction to the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. In my opinion the mere fact that the Sindh Chief Court later on was included with the definition of High Court under Section 219 of the Government of India Act, did not change the nature of this jurisdiction. I am fortified in this view by another circumstances. Formerly in Sindh there used to be a Court of the Judicial Commissioner. It was exercising jurisdiction in civil matters within the district of Karachi under section 2 of Bombay Act No,1 of 1906. It reads as under:-- "There shall be for the Province a Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sindh (hereinafter called the Court of the Judicial Commissioner) which shall be the highest Court of Appeal in civil and criminal matters in the said Province and which shall be the District Court and Court of Session of Karachi."
' This position continued till 1937 although in the Government of India Act, Judicial Commissioner's Court in Sindh was deemed as a High Court. But in spite of this in civil matters it continued as District Court. In 1926 the Sindh Courts Act was passed by the Bombay Legislature; which came into force in 1940. But in this enactment, instead of treating the Chief Court of Sindh as District Court, it was designated as the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. Thus the same position was maintained and it wave cot enacted that it will have ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the limits of Karachi and also did not change the nature of the jurisdiction in civil matters"
' Then in the last sentence of first paragraph at page 580 he goes on to hold as follows: "It seems to me that the jurisdiction exercised in such matters is a District Court jurisdiction and since it is exercised by the High Court it may be called as special original civil jurisdiction or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction, but certainly cannot be described as ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court." (Underlining is mine)
17. Thus, in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton & General Trading Company reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 it was held that this Court while exercising the powers of original civil jurisdiction is exercising jurisdiction that is exercised by Civil Courts in the civil district of Karachi i.e, it is functioning as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the District of Karachi only under a special statute. This decision of Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 was though overruled by the Division Bench of this Court which is reported in PLD 1975 Karachi 944 but this Division Bench decision was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pruvince of Sindh v. Haji Razzaq reported in 1991 SCMR 920 and the decision reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 was upheld by the Supreme Court.
18. I shall now take into consideration cases relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel. In the case of Akbar Hussain v. Aishabai reported in PLD 1991 SC 985, though in its head note it says that the case of Firdous Trading Corporation (PLD 1961 Karachi 565) is not the correct law whereas in the main judgment it is held that it is correct law which has also been affirmed by a Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Sindh v. Haji Razzaq reported in 1991 SCMR 920. In the case of Hamidullah Khan and another v. Ch. Muhammad Jameel and others reported in 2003 SCMR 995 the issue of exercising original civil jurisdiction by this Court was not even discussed. In any event in this case it was held by the Supreme Court that suit relating to the rights in an immovable property would lie within the local limits of the Court where the property is situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court then the suit in such Court would not be maintainable. So this case is of no help to the plaintiff's case. In the case of Sh.
Muhammad Amin & Co v. PIDC reported in 1991 CLC 684, the dispute related to supply of sugar and the cause of action accrued at Karachi. Hence, the suit filed on the original side, of this Court was said to be maintainable. This case is therefore of no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the case of Agricides (Pvt.) Limited v. Ali K.Agro S. Corporation Limited reported in 1988 CLC Karachi 59 the contract was executed at Karachi and therefore the suit was rightly filed on the Original Side of this Court. Hence, this case also is of no application to the facts of the present case. The case of Fauji Foundation and others v. Yousuf reported in 1985 CLC Karachi 2799 is related to supply of cotton bales and part of the contract was signed at Karachi and under the contract, the price was also to be paid at Karachi and the letter for cancellation of the contract was also served at Karachi.
Hence, in this background it was held that the suit on the original side of this Court is maintainable.
In the case of Ittehad Cargo Services v. Rafaqat Ali reported in PLD 2002 Karachi 420, the controversy did not involve the interpretation of Section 120 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore it also has no application to the facts of the present case. The case of Murlidhar P. Gangwani v. Aftab Aslam Agha and others reported in 2005 MLD 1505 pertains to personal injury and part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi. Hence, in this background it was held that the suit is maintainable on the original side of this Court. In the case of West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v.
M/s. Shaikh Mohammad Amin & Company reported in 1992 CLC 2047, the dispute was with regard to the sale of sugar and part of cause of action accrued at Karachi and in this background it was held that the suit is maintainable on the original side. In the case of Dr. Muhammad Shabbir Khan v.
M/s. Abu Dhabi Petroleum Company Limited reported in PLD 1975 Karachi 138, the dispute was with regard to personal injury and it was held that action can be taken for personal injury where the defendant resides or carries on business. Obviously under the provisions of Section 19 CPC such suit at the option of the plaintiff cannot be brought in Karachi and this exactly was done in the preceding three referred cases.
19. Furthermore, in the present case the dispute relates to immovable property, which is not situated within the territorial limits of Karachi. It cannot be entertained on the Original Side of this Court. In the case of Hamidullah Khan and another v. Ch. Muhammad Jameel and others reported in 2003 SCMR 995 it was held that suit relating to the rights in an immovable property would lie within the local limits of the Court where the property is situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court then the suit in such Court would not be maintainable.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the cases of West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Fateh Textile Mills Limited reported in PLD 1964 (W.P) Karachi 11, Chaudhry Nazir Ahmed Asad v. Institute of Chartered Accountants reported in 2004 YLR 2471, Wajid Hussian Farugi v. Shahida Shahnawaz reported in 2007 CLC Karachi 394, Abdul Kadir v. Ashraf Ali Khan reported in 1982 CLC 110 DB, Karachi, Munawar Ali Khan v. Marfani and Company Limited reported in PLD 2003 Karachi 382, Mazhar Valjee Vs. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi reported in 2004 YLR 2525, Abdul Majid v. Government of Pakistan reported in 1988 CLC Karachi 2454, Aziz Bibi v. Aijaz Ali reported in 2007 YLR Karachi 21, Gulfam & others v. Bibi Qudsia Begum reported in 2003 CLC 1183 and Master Mehboob Ali Soomro v. Sindh Road Transport Corporation reported in 1999 CLC 1722, but in view of the decision given in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation and others v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Company Limited reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 the above cases do not lay down correct law as the findings thereon are contrary to the view taken in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Company reported in PLD 1961 Karachi 565 with regard to the nature of original civil jurisdiction of this Court and the views taken therein were upheld by five Judges of the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1991 SCMR 920.
21. It has come on record that in the year 2005 the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction in relation to the suit property against the defendant No,1 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kotri within whose territorial jurisdiction the suit .Property is situated. The plaintiffs then withdrew the suit on 31- 10-2006 after seeking permission to file a fresh suit in case fresh cause of action.Arises in future against the defendant No,1 Vide order dated 31-10-2006 the Civil Court at kotri allowed the suit to be withdrawn.
22. From the above discussion, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that whenever any suit is filed in this High Court and is found that it does not relate to any of the Districts of Karachi then irrespective of the fact that it is valued at more than three million rupees the same has to be returned back to the plaintiff for its presentation before a Court of appropriate jurisdiction under Order VII, rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. It is not section 120 of the Civil Procedure Code but section 7 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 which confers original civil jurisdiction on this High Court and this jurisdiction being a special jurisdiction conferred under section 7 of the Sindh Civil Courts, 1962 Ordiance is limited for the matters that emanate from the territorial limits of the Districts of Karachi.
Except for the Districts of Karachi no other territory falls under the original civil jurisdiction of this High Court.
23. Office is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for its presentation before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction after retaining only the copies of the pleadings for its record.