1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C. J.-The facts leading to this appeal are that a suit, bearing No, 17/1979, was filed on the original side of this Court by respondent No, 1 against the appellants and respondent No, 2 for recovery of a sum amounting\ to Rs, 1,29,92,595. The plaintiff claimed relief for recovery of that money together with interest on the decretal amount. The appellant without filing written statement made an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 read with section 151, C. P. C.
2. Stating that the Court had no jurisdiction. The grounds in support of the prayer were as follows :- "(1-a) Defendant No, 1 is a Company incorporated under the laws of New York, U. S. A. Having its office in New York. It has no office, employee or assets in Pakistan.
(b) All witnesses who could testify as to the quality of Re-built Tractor Components are located in U. S. A."
3. ' The learned Single Judge rejected this application on the ground that the appellant had not filed any written statement, and, therefore, proper appreciation of the pleas raised in the application was not possible. In fact, the learned Single Judge advised the appellant to We have heard Mr. Sarwana, and we must confess that we have not been able to understand him. His argument appears to be that, because the appellants were a Company incorporated in the United States of America, and also for the reason that the appellants have no property in Pakistan, the suit could not be filed in Pakistan.
4. In regard to the second agreement that the appellants having no property in Pakistan, a suit could not be filed in Pakistan, we must straightaway reject that argument for the simple reason that the Civil Procedure Code, or, even any canon of international law would not bar the filing of a suit solely on the ground that defendant has no property in the country where the suit has been filed.
5. ' The next point urged is on the basis of some concept of international law, and in support of his contention, Mr. Sarwana has relied on a passage appearing at page 623 of Eighth Edition of the book Private International Law by Cheshire. The learned author has referred to the case of Gurdial Singh v. The Rajah of Faridkot. In that case, the Raja, who was the respondent in the Court of Appeal but the plaitniff in the original case filed in India, bad obtained a decree against one of his former employees Gurdyal Singh. A question arose about execution of the decree, and the learned Judges, who decided the case, in the judgment wrote as follows :- "The appellant, who had been treasurer to the Rajah, left Faridkot five years before these actions and did not return there again. An action founded on the judgments was later brought against the appellant in the Court at Lahore, where he was then resident. This action was, therefore, on a foreign judgment, since Faridkot was a native State with independent jurisdiction."
6. ' The above passage would seem to indicate that, perhaps, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the decree obtained in the native State could not be executed in Lahore. The stage has yet to arrive in this case, and we cannot enter into that question for the present, because no decree has been passed.
7. ' In these circumstances, we dismiss this appeal in limine. 1894 A C 670