1. This writ petition challenges order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the judge consumer Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the complaint of Respondent No. 2 was dismissed.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2, who was resident of Sargodha purchased a sofa set along with a table from the petitioner's shop situated in District Chiniot. On accounts of discovering faults in the furniture, the petitioner instituted the complaint before the judge consumer Court, Sargodha. The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Section 35 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (the Act) for rejection of the same on the ground that the judge consumer Court Sargodha has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The judge consumer Court vide order dated 09.10.2012 dismissed the said application on the ground that Respondent No. 2 was residents of Sargodha and faults were detected in the furniture in Sargodha and, therefore, by virtue of Section 27(c) of the Act, the consumer Court at Sargodha had the necessary jurisdiction.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner by making reference to Section 27 of the Act argued that the consumer Court at Faisalabad had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has already been proceeded against ex-parte on 06.05.2015.
4. 4.Section 27 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the consumer Courts and stipulates that the consumer Court shall have jurisdiction where the defendants actually and voluntarily reside, carry their business or personally work for gain and where the cause of action wholly and in part arises.
5. The reading of aforementioned provisions makes it clear that it is parimateria to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the present case, the alleged cause of action accrued to Respondent No. 2 when he purchased the furniture from the petitioner in District Chiniot. The consumer Court at Faisalabad, therefore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regardless of the fact that defect in the furniture occurred at Sargodha. The judge consumer Court, Sargodha, therefore, wrongly entertained the complaint and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
6. 5.In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed order dated 01.10.2012 is set aside and the judge consumer Court, Sargodha is accordingly directed to return the complaint to Respondent No. Petition allowed.