ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---This civil revision petition in terms of section 115, Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "the C.P.C.") is arising out of the order dated 17.9.2019 (hereinafter "the impugned Order") passed by learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Muslim Bagh (hereinafter "the trial Court") whereby the application under section Order VII, Rule 10, C.P .C. filed by respondent No.1/defendant was dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit under Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter "the Act") for judicial separation and divorce on the ground of desertion against the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter "the petitioner") before the trial court with following prayers: "It is accordingly , respectively prayed that the suit of plaintiff may be decreed against defendant in following terms: I. Judicial Separation between the parties from the date of 26.09.2017 may kindly be ordered followed by dissolve the marriage tie between the parties on the ground of desertion.
II. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted."
3. The petitioner resisted the suit being defendant. While submitting her written statement, she controverted the assertions contained in the plaint and also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground that petitioner is residing in Quetta as well as the cause of action has also been accrued herein, therefore trial court at Muslim Bagh has no power to adjudicate upon the matter and the same is liable to be returned.
4. The application was contested by respondent No.l. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. vide order dated 17.9.2019. Hence, this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 at considerable length and also perused the record.
6. Admittedly in para No. 7 of the plaint the plaintif f/respondent mentioned that "both the parties are residing at Quetta, therefore this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter ." But on the other hand in the plaint, which contain the name of Court of Civil Judge Muslim Bagh at the title page, the word Quetta appearing in Para No. 7 of the plaint is just typographical mistake on the part of the parties.
7. It is also an admitted fact that marriage certificate of the parties showed that the parties entered into marriage on 16.5.2017 at Quetta. The petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing at Muslim Bagh. The residence of respondent No.1 can be further ascertain ed by his CNIC and domicile too, which show him as resident of Muslim Bagh. The respondent No.1 averted in his plaint that the petitioner herself deserted from the house of respondent No.1 on 26.9.2017. On the other hand the petitioner stated in her written statem ent that she did not leave the house of respondent No.1 rather the respondent No.1 expelled her from his house. From the above facts of the case, it is established that parties were lastly residing in the house of the respondent No.1 at Muslim Bagh.
8. The other point, which needs determination is whether the Civil Judge, Muslim Bagh, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or otherwise. The term "District Court" has been defined in section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, thus:- "(3) 'District Court' means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together ."
It will be plain from reading the languag e of section 3(2) that petitioning/suing spouse has choice of selecting his/her forum either as. 1) The District where the parties have last resided together . 2) The District within the local limits of which both the husband and wife resided, though living separately "reside" at the date of the presentation of the petition, the present case is clearly governed the first contingency , that in on the very showing of the petitioner herself they were married at Quetta and lastly resided together at Muslim Bagh.
9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is residing at Quetta and the Court of Civil Judge Muslim Bagh has no jurisdiction and it is fair jurisdiction of Civil Judge District. Quetta in view of section 20 of C.P.C. as to the arguments that for the purpose to determination to be placed of suing the provision of section 20, C.P.C. are to be taken into consideration, which provide that the suit ought to be filed in a court where the defendant is residing.
10. For determination of the jurisdiction section 20 is not to be taken into considera tion particularly in the prevailing position of the legal provision contained in special law viz Divorce Act 1869. The provision of section 3(3) of the Act cater position with regard to determination of the jurisdiction of the court and in presence of such provision in special law the provision of general law should not be taken into consideration. Reliance is placed in the case titled as Muhammad Siddiq v . Zawar Hussain (PLD 1974 SC page 572) and it was held as under: "It is no doubt true that whenever any special jurisdiction is created or a power is conferred upon a Civil Court then in the absence of any provision to the contrary , the provisions of the Code will apply to such proceedings. But it is equally well settled that in the case of any conflict between the provisions of the Code and any local law the latter will over -ride any provisions to the contrary contained in the Code."
11. Hence, where a Special law determines a place of suing, which in the present case in terms of section 3(3) could be either the principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a district, the same would prevail over the provisions of section 20, C.P.C. It is now trite law that the provisions of special law always override the provisions of the general law to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency between the two.
12. In the case titled as Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investment Agency and others (2017 CLD 1198 Supreme Court of Pakistan) and State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others (2017 CLD 1080 Supreme Court of Pakistan) it has invariably been held as under: "Hence where a Special law determines a place of suing, which in the present case in terms of section 3(3) could be either the principal Civil Court of Origi nal jurisdiction in a district, the same would prevail over the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is now trite law that the provisions of special law always override the provisions of the general law to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency between the two."
13. In view of the above discussion, the trial court below has thus dealt in accordance with the law and arrived at a just decision, the result is that the petition is dismissed. The findings of the court below is maintained with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Judge Muslim Bagh and the trial court is directed to decide the pending suit of respondent No.1 expeditiously and to decide the suit as soon as possible.