1. C.M. No, 909-2011 Through this CM, the Applicant/Defendant No, 1 prays for rejection of plaint under. Order VII, Rules 10 & 11 CPC for want of jurisdiction as well as having no cause of action.
2. It is submitted that according to employment contract, the jurisdiction and choice of law are that of UAE and, therefore, present suit can not be instituted at Islamabad, Pakistan. Relying upon Clause-8 of the employment contract, it is further submitted that in case of gross negligence or any other serious breach, the defendant was competent to dismiss such employee and, therefore, the present suit is not competent. The maintainability of the suit is also attacked on the grounds that declaration sought (A), I, II, III, IV are violative of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The counsel for the applicant/defendant relied upon following case laws reported as 2011 SCMR 27, 2009 CLC 1113, 2007 CLD 1324, 2007 CLC 209, 1987 SCMR 393, 1992 SCMR 1174, PLD 1968 Karachi 222, PLD 1979 Karachi 640, PLD 1984 SC 194, PLD 1965 SC 83, PLD 1997 SC 835, 2005 SCMR 642, PLD 1971 Lahore 598, 1974 SCMR 81, 2007 YLR 19 and PLD 1985 Karachi 400.
3. The authorities are on the point that false and frivolous litigation need to be curbed and stringent measures should be taken by the Courts at all levels and Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is meant for providing speedy relief against false litigation. It is further held that in case of breach of contract, where damages are claimed, no declaration can be granted under Sections 42 and 55 of the Specific Relief Act (PLD 1971 Lahore 591).
4. The application was contested by the plaintiff vehemently through rejoinder, whereby the very maintainability of the application was challenged by stating that the Defendant No, 1 has no locus standi to seek relief from this Court and also cannot plead on behalf of Defendants 2, 3 and 4.
5. It is submitted that Plaintiff and Defendant No, 1 are residents of Islamabad and the cause of action regarding dismissal, humiliation and damages arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the defendant Company is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984 and plaintiff was appointed in Pakistan for operations in Pakistan. It is emphasized that the plaintiff was removed from service under Section 202 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, therefore, only the Courts in Islamabad, have got jurisdiction over the matter.
6. On merits, it was submitted that the disputes arising out of the pleadings, require full trial and, therefore, suit cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:-- PLC 2011 SC 1007, 2009 SCMR 708, 2009 SCMR 109, 2005 PLD 806, 1999 SCMR 1526, 1999 SCMR 1507, PLD 2011 Karachi 484, 2011 SCMR 1053, PLD 2008 Islamabad 48, PLD 1970 SC 373 and PLD 2006 SC 328.
7. The case laws are on the point that in case of wrongful termination of service, such employee can claim damages. It is further held that jurisdiction point can be resolved after appraisal of evidence and if the parties reside at the same place then the Courts of that area have the jurisdiction over the matter.
8. Heard and record perused.
9. The employment contract admittedly was executed in Pakistan for employment of the plaintiff as CEO of the Company in Pakistan. The plaintiff was employed to operate within Pakistan. The decisions for termination of his services was taken by the Board members under the proceedings of Companies' Laws 1984 at House No, 80, Street No, 90, G6/3 Islamabad, in a Meeting on 17-3-2011 and, therefore, prima facie the cause of action, if any arose at Islamabad. The applications under Order VII, Rule 10&11 CPC are required to be decided on the basis of tentative assessment of available material, because the final verdict on the suit requires deeper appreciation of evidence, which at this stage, is not permissible. The dispute between the parties requires framing of issues, evidence from both sides and detailed arguments on all aspects of the case. The dispute between the parties is about civil wrong and asking for damages due to the loss of reputation, therefore, the civil Courts of the area have got jurisdiction over the matter.
10. In consideration of above, the application in hand is dismissed.
11. CM No, 18-S-2012 Through this application, the plaintiff has asked for temporary injunction till finalization of the suit on the grounds that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and there is an apprehension that the defendant may not close its three entities in Pakistan by transferring the share holdings and other immovable properties.
12. The application is contested by the defendant through rejoinder, whereby the very maintainability of the application was challenged for lacking three pre-requisites of Order XXXIX, Ruler, 1 & 2 CPC.
13. On merits, it is submitted that in a suit for damages, no application for stay can be filed and the plaintiff has got no nexus with the defendants' assets/business. Learned counsel relied upon the case laws reported in 1974 SCMR 81 and 2007 YLR 19, which are on the paint that no stay can be granted if all the three pre-requisites of Order )(XXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC are not available.
14. Heard and record perused.
15. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff was called from some other foreign company to join the defendant company for a period of 3 years but before the expiry of contract, his services were terminated wit certain allegation, which gave rise to the filing of present suit. The removal with certain allegation and claim damages certainly require evidence from both sides, but on the basis of tentative assessm ent and available material the plaintiff has got a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Any detailed discussion at this stage may not prejudice the cause of any party and, therefore, without commenting upon merits the circumstances demand that a temporary injunction be passed and, therefore, the defendants are restrained to transfer of share holding or any other moveable and immovable properties in Pakistan to the extent of the claim of the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. The application is allowed in the above terms.
16. CM No, 15/2012 This is an application under Section 148 read with Order XVII, Rule 1 CPC for enlargement of time to file the written statement.
17. It is submitted that the defendants have filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit. It is further submitted that the said suit was also fixed for arguments on the stay application and, therefore, enlargement of time to file the written statement is to be extended.
18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the defendants should have submitted the written statement in stead of filing frivolous applications to delay the proceedings of the case.
19. The written statement has to be filed within 30 days, which was not done by the defendants within prescribed time but for fair trial and in the interest of justice opportunity to file the written statement is granted and the defendants are directed to file the written statements within fortnight at the cost of Rs, 5000/- jointly.
20. Re-list on 20-02-2012.