' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge Kotli dated 15-11-2012, through which legal issues have been decided against the petitioners.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the present respondent Muhammad Bashir filed a suit for specific performance regarding an amount of Rs,1;31,39,886.20 from the present petitioner No,1 Mehmood Ahmed in the court of District Judge Kotli, which was made over to Additional District Judge, Kotli for disposal under law. It was stated in the suit that the respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Bashir and respondent No,1 are maternal uncle and nephew to each other. The plaintiff arranged visa for defendant Mehmood Ahmed for Dubai and kept the said Mehmood Ahmed with him as an employee against wages of UAE Dirham 1000 per month at Dubai.
The plaintiff used to pay more to the defendant Mehmood Ahmed in addition to his wages. The defendant Mehmood Ahmed used to look after the business of the plaintiff at Dubai. The present petitioner No,1/defendant Mehmood Ahmed transferred an amount of 2 Crore Rupees belonging to the respondent/plaintiff to Pakistan fraudulently. The said Mehmood Ahmed constructed a house of worth Rs,30,00,000 as well. A Panchait was held between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 at Kotli.
Defendant No,1 paid Rs,9,40,000 to plaintiff. But later on, defendant No,1 refused to pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff. It was prayed to issue a decree of specific performance regarding an amount of Rs,1,31,39,886.20 in favour of the plaintiff Muhammad Bashir and against defendant No,1 Mehmood Ahmed.
3. Written statement was submitted by the petitioners/defendants, stating therein that the said agreement was executed in Dubai, so this court has no jurisdiction regarding the controversy. The petitioner Mehmood Ahmed has no concern with any Panchait. If any violation of the contract has been made, the courts in Dubai have jurisdiction to try the same. No agreement was executed between the petitioner Mehmood Ahmed and respondent Muhammad Bashir. The petitioner Mehmood Ahmed has been working for a company at Dubai and an agreement was executed between the said company and the petitioner Mehmood Ahmed. It was prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. Issues were framed. Arguments on legal issues were heard and the learned Additional District Judge Kotli decided the said issues against the petitioner/defendant Mehmood Ahmed observing that the court has jurisdiction to try the controversy in hand. Hence, the instant revision petition.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit filed by the respondent Muhammad Bashir was not maintainable in the present shape. The respondent could file the suit for recovery of any amount if advisable. The said agreement was not executed between the present parties. The agreement was executed between a company of Dubai and the petitioner Mehmood Ahmed at Dubai. So, the courts of AJ&K have no jurisdiction to hear any suit regarding the said agreement. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition and to dismiss the suit filed by the present respondent Muhammad Bashir and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
' 2007 SCR 86-125, 2008 SCR 308 and 2009 SCR 294.
6. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioners, Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Advocate the learned counsel for the respondent Muhammad Bashir contended that a Panchait was held at Kotli regarding the said controversy, so the courts here have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent. The petitioner Mehmood Ahmed has admitted the controversy while paying back some portion of amount to the respondent Muhammad Bashir. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kotli is based on sound and cogent reasons. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
' 1999 CLC 954, 2001 CLC 104, 2003 CLC 1744 and 2007 SCM R 933.
7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred minutely. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the said agreement was executed at Dubai. The record reveals that the said agreement was not executed between the present parties, but the said agreement was executed between a company Almutamad Real Estate and one Mehmood Muhammad. Khaliq. Respondent/ plaintiff has endorsed the name of the petitioner as Mehmood Ahmed in the suit. Anyhow, the said agreement was not executed between the petitioner Mehmood Ahmed and the respondent Muhammad Bashir. So, the respondent/ plaintiff cannot claim any amount from the petitioner Mehmood Ahmed on the basis of the said agreement. Moreover, if any agreement took place in a foreign country, then the courts here have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy upon the subject matter of the agreement. This principle has been laid down in the precedent 2007 SCR.
125. The learned Additional District Judge Kotli did not record his findings issue-wise. So, the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C. Have been violated as well. The precedents referred by the learned counsel for the respondent are irrelevant having in view the facts of the present case.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, it is crystal clear that the suit filed by the present respondent is not maintainable in the present shape and a civil court here has no jurisdiction to try the controversy between the parties on the basis of an agreement, which was executed in Dubai.
The respondent/plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit here at Kotli. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge Kotli are not sustainable. The revision petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kotli dated 15-11-2012 is hereby set aside and the suit filed by the present respondent Muhammad Bashir is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.