' This Constitutional Petition assails the judgment dated 30th July, 1981 and decree dated 8th August, 1981 passed by the learned XXIV Civil Judge Karachi whereby the petitioner bas been directed to pay a sum of Rs, 300 p. In. On account of maintenance to Mst. Fatima Bibi, his wife, viz. Respondent No, 3, and a sum of Rs, 200 p. m. On account of maintenance of his two children i. e. At the rate of Rs, 100 p.m. Per child. It has also been prayed that the execution proceedings of the aforementioned decree pending before the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, district Gujart, be also declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Mst. Fatima Bibi, respondent No, 3, is the wife of Manzoor Ahmad petitioner. They, as a result of their wedlock, have two sons, namely, Amjad Farooq aged 7 years and Safdar Iqbal aged 3 years. It is alleged that the petitioner and respondent No, 3 both are residents of district Gujrat but in order to pressurize the petitioner, respondent No, 3 instituted a false suit against the petitioner through her brother who is employed at Karachi, before XXIV Civil Judge Karachi, for maintenance under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. No service of the petitioner was effected and respondent No, 3 managed to obtain the impugned ex parte judgment and decree. Subsequently, a precept has been sent to Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, in connection with execution of the impugned decree and thereupon the petitioner learnt about the impugned judgment and decree.
3. It is contended that respondent No, 3 is resident of Gujrat district. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner on 21st December, 1981 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, district Gujrat wherein she has acknowledged that she was resident of Gujrat district. It is maintained that the learned XXIV Civil Judge Karachi had no jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by him was without lawful authority and could not lawfully, be executed at Mandi Bahauddin.
4. The main point for consideration in this case is as to whether this Court can in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, declare a judgment and decree passed by a Court located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, even if the allegations of the petitioner about the factual aspect of the case arc 'moved is be correct. The only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this respect is that the impugned decree is sought to be executed by means of a precept through the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, which Court is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court can competently declare the impugned judgment and decree to be without lawful authority. This contention appears to be without substance inasmuch as the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a Civil Court at Karachi, a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action has, therefore, arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The mere fact that a precept in regard to the impugned decree has been received by the Civil Court at Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a judgment and decree which have been passed by a Court located beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur Agency and 3 others, it has been held that when the impugned order was passed and the action was taken in the tribal territory of Bajaur which was outside the jurisdiction of Peshawar High Court, the mere fact that the impugned order had been conveyed to a person residing within the territorial limits of the said Court, would not confer jurisdiction upon the Peshawar High Court to interfere with the impugned order which was passed in a territory which was beyond the jurisdiction of that High Court.
5. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been able to find out any direct authority to support his contention that since the impugned decree was sought to be executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the same could be declared as without lawful authority by this Court. He has, however, quoted an authority from Indian jurisdiction, viz Messrs Muhammad All Saraf Ali & Co. V. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras which, certainly, has no bearing on the facts of this case. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on Abdul Rehman and 5 others v. The State and 3 others wherein it was held that whenever an order is made or action taken in territories within the jurisdiction of the High Court even if it is in relation to an occurrence having taken place in a tribal territory, the High Court would have jurisdication to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, the impugned judgment and decree have teen passed by a Court which is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the cited authority is of no help to the petitioner.
6. In the light of what has gone above, it is concluded that since the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a Court which is located beyond' the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this B Court cannot competently, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, declare the impugned judgment and decree to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. PLD 1981 Pesh. .57 AIR 1952 Mad. 658 PLD 1971 Pesh. 611 2 3 1 2 3