' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- The instant petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Seeking transfer of the respondent's suit, against the petitioner, for rendition of accounts entitled "Ghulam Farid Zahid v. M/s Sixon Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited and three others" pending in the Court of Ms. Mehnaz Hayat, Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan, to the Court of Mr. Farooq- e-Azam Sohal, Civil Judge, Lahore, before whom the petitioner's suit, against the respondent, for recovery of Rs,6.276 Million is pending.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the head office of the petitioner, a private limited company, is situated at Lahore. The contract between the parties, whereby the respondent was appointed as the petitioner's Marketing Development Manager, was executed at Lahore on 21.12.2014. The petitioner does not have any Regional Office at Multan. Moreover, Clause 1(vii) of the contract dated 21.12.2014 stipulates that the jurisdiction in the matter shall be before the Courts at Lahore. Further contends that Section 20 of the C.P.C. Is applicable to the instant case. The jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, lies exclusively with the Courts at Lahore. The respondent's suit may, therefore, be withdrawn from the Civil Court at Multan and may be entrusted to the Civil Court at Lahore wherein the petitioner's suit against the respondent is pending.
4. The learned counsel has relied on "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Rana Muhammad Saleem" (1987 SCM R 393) and "Standard Insurance Co. v. Pak Garments Ltd." (1998 SCM R 1239) in support of his contentions.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent controverts the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Submits that the respondent was appointed by the petitioner as its Marketing Manager in the Region Multan and Sahiwal through the appointment letter dated 25.11.2014. Further submits that the Regional Accountant of the petitioner operates from the petitioner's office in the Industrial Estate, Phase-I, Multan. Submits that the petitioner has taken on lease the premises in the Industrial Estate Multan for establishing a warehouse of its products. The learned counsel has submitted a photocopy of the lease deed. Be placed on the record.
5. Contends that the Civil Courts at Multan have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
6. Further submits that the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Multan has been raised before the trial Court at Multan. Indeed, the respondent's suit is currently pending for determining the territorial jurisdiction in the suit.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed his suit by concealment of facts and by giving a wrong description of the petitioner and the other defendants in the title of his plaint. Refers to the copy of the respondent's plaint (Annexure-F) to contend that the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the defendants but the petitioner's address has not been mentioned in the title of the plaint. Further submits that a director of the petitioner has been impleaded as defendant No,3. His address has also not been given in the plaint. Further contends that the respondent has deliberately mis-described the particulars of the petitioner in his plaint so as to establish that the jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Civil Courts at Multan.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly the petitioner employed the respondent as its Marketing Development Manager and/or Marketing Manager. As per the copy of the contract dated 21.12.2014 placed on the record by the petitioner (Annexure-B) the respondent was appointed to that post in the Head Office of the petitioner at Lahore. The contract also contains Clause 1(vii) wherein it has been agreed that, "... The place of jurisdiction shall be at Lahore."
9. It is further established from the record that the petitioner in its capacity as principal has sued the respondent, its agent, for recovery of Rs,6.276 Million. The respondent in turn in his capacity of being an agent of the petitioner has sued the petitioner as principal for rendition of accounts. The respondent's suit, therefore, appears to be hit by the rule of law that a principal cannot be ordered to render accounts to an agent unless liability to account is established. However, this controversy is not before this Court. The question which requires determination is as to whether the respondent's suit should be transferred to Lahore purely on the basis of the ground that the Civil Courts at Multan do not have jurisdiction in the matter.
10. As noted above lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties to establish that the Civil Courts at Multan do not or do have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
11. It may, however, be noted that it is a settled proposition of law that Civil Courts exercise their jurisdiction under the provisions of the C.P.C. If a Civil Court does not possess such jurisdiction under C.P.C. Then it cannot be conferred upon it through mutual agreement between the parties to a dispute. However, where two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try a suit under the C.P.C. Then an agreement between the parties to the dispute to the effect that only one of such Courts shall try such a dispute cannot be considered contrary to public policy as the said agreement would not violate the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, nor the provisions of Sections 9 and 20 of the C.P.C. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan's case, supra, refers. In other words if two or more Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter then if the parties to a contract/dispute choose to confer jurisdiction upon one of such Courts then such an agreement is held to be not violative of the law. And resultantly the Court so chosen assumes jurisdiction in the matter.
12. In the instant case, however, neither of the parties have taken the stance that the Civil Courts at Multan and Lahore have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Civil Courts at Lahore whereas on the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly argued that the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Civil Courts at Multan.
13. There is another aspect of the case that is to say a perusal of the documents placed on the record shows that the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Multan is a contentious one. Reference in this regard is firstly made to the copy of the contract dated 21.12.2014 (Annexure- B), which apparently has been executed by the parties at Lahore. The contract lays down that the respondent has been appointed as the petitioner's Marketing Development Manager to serve in the head office of the petitioner, which is admittedly at Lahore. The contract through Clause 1(vii) stipulates that the said appointment and the associated contracts shall be governed by the law of Pakistan. It is further stipulated that the place of jurisdiction shall be at Lahore. Reference may also be made to Annexures-C, D and E, which are photocopies of the show-cause notice, suspension letter and termination letter of the respondent. All of these documents refer to the contract dated 21.12.2014. It may be further noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has denied that the petitioner has any Regional Office at Multan.
14. The respondent on the other hand in his plaint has relied upon a contract dated 25.11.2014. A copy whereof has, however, not been placed on the record by either party. However, from the copy of the rent deed, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that the petitioner has a warehouse in the Industrial Estate at Multan. There is denial in this respect from the petitioner's side. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that the petitioner has a Regional Office at Multan.
15. When the above facts are considered in juxtaposition then it is established that the question of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Multan is a contentious issue and cannot be determined summarily. Moreover, admittedly arguments for determination of the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court at Multan are due to be heard by the said Court.
16. In the above scenario, therefore, on the basis of the settled principle of law that an application for transfer of a suit under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Is only competent if the trial Court before whom the suit in question is instituted/filed is competent to try it. It is further settled law that competency for this purpose includes not only pecuniary competency but also territorial competency. In other words the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court before whom the suit, sought to be transferred, is pending has to be determined before the suit is transferred, as the suit under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Can only be transferred from a .Court competent 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).
17. As observed above the territorial competency/jurisdiction of the trial Court at Multan is a contentious issue, which cannot be determined in these proceedings, therefore, following the law as laid down in Mst. Razia Shafi's case, supra, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court at Multan shall first determine the question of its territorial jurisdiction before proceeding further in the matter. The petitioner may thereafter seek its remedy in accordance with the law.
18. Disposed of accordingly.
19. There is no order as to costs.