' ABDUL SAMAD KHAN, J.---Controversy in instant appeal emanates from suit for recovery of Rs, 20 Million towards compensation for wrong allegedly done to the petitioner by the respondent which was filed in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Haripur and entrusted to Civil Judge-I, Haripur for adjudication and disposal.
2. It was averred therein that Arif Khan Tareen, appellant herein, was residing in Italy along with his family for earning his livlihood while he was permanent resident of District Haripur. It was further alleged that on 21-5-2008 he purchased return ticket of Qatar Airlines from Italy to Pakistan but was not allowed to travel back by officials of the defendant on the ground that seat had been reserved on credit card and was not confirmed, however, subsequently after having been realized, his seat was reserved for 29-6-2008.
3. Due to aforesaid act of the respondent, appellant instituted suit for damages to the tune of Rs, 20 million whereupon summons was issued to the respondent in response whereto Area Manager of the defendant appeared by filing written statement and application for return of plaint was moved on the ground that defendant was carrying on business at Doha (Qatar) having its branch office at Islamabad and Regional Office at Karachi and that defendant had no business, whatsoever, within territorial limits of Haripur. It was further added therein that if at all something had happened, the same was obviously at Islamabad hence civil court at Islamabad, only, could assume jurisdiction.
4. The matter came up for hearing on the proposition mentioned hereinabove whereupon arguments were addressed by counsel for the parties and the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 4-6-2009 allowed application filed by the respondent and order qua return of plaint along with annexures was passed which has since been impugned before us.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that respondent is running business within the territorial limits of District Haripur through various travel agents hence the civil court over there could validly assume jurisdiction. Contrary to this, learned counsel representing respondent rebutted arguments of the appellant's counsel by arguing that neither defendant resides nor carries on business at Haripur so much so that cause of action also arose to the appellant at Islamabad, therefore, Civil Court at Haripur can not exercise jurisdiction in the matter.
6. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and plaint has also been perused so as to reach at accurate conclusion.
7. Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure pertains to jurisdiction of the courts wherein suits in respect of compensation for wrongs to person or movables are to be filed. It relates to all types of suits arising out of wrong to the person or movables, however, the same can be filed at the option of the plaintiff i.e. Either in the court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the wrong was committed OR within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, carries on business or works for gain regardless of where the cause of action accrued.
8. From contents of plaint it would transpire that address of defendant/respondent has been given therein to be of Islamabad coupled with the fact that in view of para-3 thereof, office of the defendant at Islamabad was allegedly approached by him meaning thereby that had the respondent any office at Haripur, appellant ought to have putforth his problem before it. Question of jurisdiction being of prime consideration, is required to be decided/resolved at the outset saving the parties to litigate before the court having no jurisdiction.
9. There is no semblance of reality in the argument of counsel for the appellant that defendant carries on business and/or works for gain at Haripur in that no material whatsoever is forthcoming wherefrom even a remote inference is drawn in support of his contention, as such the said argument is devoid of any substance.
10. Plaintiff's option to sue at a place where wrong was done to him or where defendant resides or works for gain, essentially, falls within contemplation of section 19 of the Code ibid as is enumerated hereinabove and any deviation therefrom would be fatal to suit entailing each and every act together with proceedings to be without jurisdiction.
11. Exercise of jurisdiction respecting return of plaint is perfectly in accordance with law and judicial pronouncements of superior courts on the subject, therefore, choice of petitioner to sue wherever he desires and that, too, in disregard of provisions contained in the statute would never prevail particularly when there is no uncertainty regarding determination of jurisdiction of the court.
' No illegality and/or irregularity has been committed by the court below hence we are not inclined to upset the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge.
' In pursuance to what has been observed and held hereinabove, instant appeal being bereft of any merit is herby dismissed.