' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- The instant petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 24 read with Section 19 of the C.P.C. For transfer of the respondent's suit, against the petitioner, for recovery of Rs,25,00,000/-, as damages, entitled "Muhammad Yasin v. Dr. Shamshad Hussain Syed", pending in the Court of Mr. Malik Atif Bin Saeed, Civil Judge 1st Class, Burewala, District Vehari, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Lahore.
2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are to the effect that the respondent has filed the afore - noted suit against the petitioner, the Chief Physician of Canal View Diagnostic Center, Lahore (the Center), inter alia, on the grounds that whilst conducting the Anti HCV test of the respondent's son (Muhammad Usman Naz) due to negligence and acts of omission and commission done by the petitioner and the Center the result of the respondent's son's said test was declared to be Anti-HCV "reactive" whereas tests done by various other laboratories on or around the same time showed the respondents Anti HCV "non-reactive". However, as the report of the Center was to be only considered by the respondent's son's foreign employers, therefore, the respondent's son could not go to Saudi Arabia to join service. As a consequence respondent suffered financially as well as emotionally, hence the petitioner should pay the respondent Rs,25,00,000/- as damages.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ordinarily resident at Lahore and also works for gain at Lahore. The Center is admittedly situated at Lahore and the test in question was also conducted in the Center at Lahore. Contends that in view thereof the jurisdiction in the matter lies exclusively with the Civil Courts at Lahore. In support of his contentions relies on Section 19 of the C.P.C. Which reads as under:- "19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable.---Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable properly, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts."
4. Further contends that the respondent has deliberately filed the suit at Burewala, even though, the cause of action, if any, which in any case is denied, accrued to the respondent at Lahore as the medical test in question was carried at Lahore. Admittedly the petitioner not only resides but also works for gain at Lahore. Moreover, the entire evidence of the case is at Lahore. Reiterates that the jurisdiction in the matter lies exclusively with the Civil Courts at Lahore.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent resides at Burewala and the cause of action has also arisen to the respondent at Burewala, therefore, the Civil Courts at Burewala have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. It is settled law that an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. For transfer of a suit can only be competent if the Court seized of the suit is competent to try it. Moreover, competency for this purpose includes not only pecuniary competency but also territorial competency. In other words superior Courts cannot pass an order for transfer of a suit under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Unless the Court from which the transfer of the suit is sought to be made has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try it. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment reported as "Mst. Razia Shaft v. Major M.S. Malik" (PLD 1971 SC 247).
8. In the instant case upon, the petitioner's own showing the Civil Courts at Burewala do not have jurisdiction in the matter. If that be so, then on the basis of the afore-referred judgment the instant petition is not competent.
And it is held accordingly.
9. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may move an application under Order VII, Rule 10 of the C.P.C., for return of the plaint, before the learned trial Court at Burewala, if so advised.
And as and when such an application is moved the learned trial Court shall first decide the question of its territorial jurisdiction without being influenced by any observation having been made in this order.
10. .
' There is no order as to costs.