ALI BAIG, J.---This civil 1st appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment/order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Skardu whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the suit of the appellant/plaintif f under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant civil first appeal are that the plaintif f/appellant instituted a suit for recovery of an amount amounting Rs,27,28,050/- with interest at the rate of PLS account of Scheduled Bank from institution of suit till satisfaction of decree and cancellation of agreement dated 01/07/2013 against the respondents/defendants in the trial court claiming that as per verbal agreement dated 1st February , 2012, the plaintif f/appellant has been sending/forwarding 2568 bags of potatoes worth Rs,7704000/- to the respondent/d efendant No,1 at his address at Lahore. Out of total Rs,7701000/-, the respondent No,1 has paid Rs,5268000/- to the plaintif f/appellant and remaining amount amounting to Rs,2728050/- are outstanding against the present respondent No,
1. During the pendency of suit the defendants/respondents filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. before the learned trial court mainly on the ground that since the trial court has lacks territorial jurisdiction as the defendant No,1 is residing at Lahore and one agreement between the parties was executed at Gilgit on 01/07/2013 and another agreement between the parties was executed at Lahore on 25-03-2012.
2(sic). The learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has rejected the suit of appellant/plaintif f Order VII, Rule 1 1, C P C vide impugned order dated 18/03/2016, hence this civil 1st appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the impugned order/judgment under appeal is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the suit was filed in the trial court on the basis of verbal/oral agreement dated 01/02/2012 which was executed/took place at Skardu, therefore the learned trial court had jurisdiction to hear and try the suit and the learned trial court has rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C. on misconception and illegally .
4. Conversely , the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment/order of trial court by contending that no verbal agreement was executed at Skardu, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the suit of the appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that one agreement between the parties was executed at Gilgit on 01/02/2013 and another agreement between the parties was executed at Lahore on 02/05/2012, therefore civil court Skardu has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudication upon the matter . Concluding his argum ents the learned counsel for the respondents argued that both the defendants are residing outside territorial jurisdiction of civil court Skardu.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly , the respondent No,1 is residing at Lahore and respondent No,2 is residing at District Nagar .
Moreover , from perusal of record it shows that one agreement between the parties was executed at Gilgit on 01/07/2013 and another agreement was executed at Lahore on 29/03/2012, hence the plaintif f/appellant should have filed the suit either at Nagar , Gilgit or at Lahore and civil court Skardu has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy upon the subject matter of the aforesaid agreements. Furthermo re, in presence of two written agreements the appellant/plaintif f can not file suit at Skardu on the basis of verbal agreement allegedly took place at Skardu.
7. For what has been discussed above, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the suit of the appellant/plaintif f under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. through the impugned order under appeal. The civil 1st appeal has no force which is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is maintained. Parties shall bear their own costs. File.