' NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, J.--- This judgment disposes of Civil Revision No,133/2015, filed by the petitioner (defendant) against the order dated 22nd April 2015 (hereinafter "the impugned order") passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III Quetta (hereinafter "the trial Court"), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Read with sections 20, 151 C.P.C. And all enabling provisions of C.P.C. For return of the plaint to the respondent (plaintiff) for presentation before the proper forum, has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent filed suit for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs,52,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs) and losses of Rupees Ten Million (total 15.2 million) against the petitioner before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta.
3. According to contents of the plaint, on the basis of agreement dated 04.03.2014 arrived at between the parties it was agreed that the respondent will supply 2500 tons of coal to the petitioner specification and nature whereof was to be determined on the basis of 500 tons average basis; that Rs,11800/- per ton was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within two weeks of receipt of the coal; that the agreement was duly signed by the parties with certain conditions of dispatch etc; that approximately 2200 tons coal was provided by the respondent to the petitioner; that remaining 300 tons of coal is available with the respondent and is ready to be dispatched on receiving the total amount; that so far the petitioner has paid sum of Rs,2,26,000,00/- to the respondent while sum of Rs,52,00,000/- has been withheld by the petitioner without any lawful justification causing heavy losses to the respondent as the respondent had already contracted several mines owners and has paid them the advance amount for supply of coal, which has been forfeited by them; that due to ill conduct of the petitioner, apart from Rs,52,00,000/-, the respondent has also suffered loss of Rupees Ten Million approximately. The following prayer was made in the suit: "a) Directing the defendants to make payment of amount of plaintiff Rs,52,00,000/- (Rupees fifty two lacs) and loss amount ten (10) million Rupees total 15.2 million Rupees in lump sum. b) Any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded."
3. After receiving notice, instead of filing written statement, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Read with sections 20 and 151, C.P.C. With all enabling provisions of C.P.C. For return of the plaint to the respondent for presenting the same before the proper forum.
' It has been contended in the application by the petitioner that the petitioner corporation is based in Islamabad and has its head office at 18-B, Kaghan Road, F-8 Markaz, Islamabad wherefrom the petitioner runs its operations; that the respondent has wrongly instituted the suit before learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta as the petitioner does not carry on any business in Quetta nor has any sub/branch office at Quetta; that if any wrong has allegedly been done to the respondent, the same has been done (without conceding) at Islamabad and not at Quetta; that all the correspondence including the legal notice, was sent to the head office of the petitioner at Islamabad by the respondent; that the relief has been claimed from the petitioner during business at Islamabad; that address in the plaint for service upon the petitioner has also been given of Islamabad; that according to second explanation to section 20, C.P.C., the Court at Islamabad has the jurisdiction for trial; that the material fact for determining territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court is the place of carrying on the business of the petitioner.
4. The said application was contested by the respondent by filing reply. It was contended by the respondent that application has been filed with mala fide and ulterior motive to linger on the matter; that cause of action has accrued to the respondent against the petitioner at Quetta, therefore, the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta has the jurisdiction for trial; that the controversy between the parties relates to question of fact which requires evidence; that though the petitioner carries on his business at Islamabad, but he contacted the respondent at Quetta and executed the agreement dated 04.03.2014 in pursuance whereof the respondent supplied 2200 tons of coal to the petitioner at Islamabad from Quetta as per specified terms; that the petitioner has paid Rs,2,26,000,00/- to the respondent at Quetta vide payment advices, therefore, the Court of civil jurisdiction at Quetta is competent to try the suit.
5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties the trial Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order, against which the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has its head office at Islamabad and has no branch or sub office at Quetta; that no cause of action has accrued to the respondent at Quetta against the petitioner; that the payment for dispatched coal was made by the petitioner to the respondent from Islamabad and in such circumstances the suit should have been filed by the respondent at Islamabad. While relying upon section 20, C.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the plaint should be returned to the respondent for presenting the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Islamabad. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Rahmania Trading Co. v. Eagle Star Insurance Co., Ltd., PLD 1960 SC 202 and the case of REGISTERED FIRM SHEIKHAN INDUSTRIES v. WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLD 1976 Quetta 94.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent while relying upon sections 19 and 20(c) C.P.C. And on the basis of accrual of cause of action to the respondent at Quetta stated that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as the Court of civil jurisdiction at Quetta was competent to proceed with the trial. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Abdur Rahim Baig v. Abdul Haq PLD 1994 Karachi 388.
8. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court reveals that after reproducing the contents of the plaint, the contents of the application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C., the reply thereof and sections 18 and 19, C.P.C., the trial Court has dismissed the application in the following words: "Furthermore, the following Illustrations would more help the Court to reach at just decision regarding the instant application filed by the applicant/ defendant as well as to negate the claim of applicant/defendant regarding return of plaint, which is essential to be mentioned as below: "(a) A residing in [Karachi], beats B in [Quetta], B may sue A either in [Quetta] or in [Karachi]."
8. So, application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P. C. For return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation the same before the proper/appropriate .Forum, is hereby dismissed, as such, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain upon the instant matter filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery certain amounts which could only be ascertain by adducing evidence from either sid accordingly."
9. The documents annexed with the petition reveal of an e-mail dated 4th March 2014 of the petitioner from Islamabad to the respondent at Quetta on 16:00 hours with subject "Viable coal offer" which reads as follows: "Dear Kashif As discussed please find attached the terms and conditions for the supply of local coal for your review and comments if any, once we agreed I will send you the formal Terms and conditions for signing. " (underlining is mine.)
From the above it reveals that the parties had entered into a contract for sale and purchase of coal through correspondence via e-mail and fax. The offer of the petitioner to purchase 2500 tons of coal a Rs,11800/- per ton was e-mailed to the respondent at Quetta by the petitioner from Islamabad. The annexed documents further reveal that the offer of the petitioner from Islamabad was accepted by the respondent at Quetta . And the said acceptance was conveyed by the respondent from Quetta to the petitioner at Islamabad via e-mail of the same date i,e. 4th March 2014 at 5:58 p.m.
' The annexed documents also reveal of Purchase Order (PO) dated 12th March 2014 of 2500 tons of coal which was faxed by the petitioner from Islamabad to the respondent at Quetta. The same was also annexed with general instructions.
' Copy of the bank statement annexed with the petition reveals that the agreed price of the coal, dispatched by the respondent from Quetta to the factory of the petitioner at Kalar Kahar, was used to be deposited by the petitioner in UBL account of the respondent at Hali Road Quetta online from Islamabad.
10. Since there was a contract (by correspondence) between the parties for sale/purchase of coal therefore, section 4 of the Contract Act, 1872 being relevant in the instant case is reproduced herein below: "4. Communication when complete.--The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
' The communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; ' As against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.