1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The respondent filed suit for recovery of wages against the appellant. It was alleged that he was employed with the appellant as Chief Engineer on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment. The Articles were signed at Karachi and the appellant was represented through Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, its agent. The respondent resumed his duty on appellant's vessel on 8-4-1983 and remained till 20-4-1983 on board the vessel. When the vessel was in Brunai the respondent fell ill and went on leave. On recovering he intimated the appellant and wrote on 8-1-1984 for joining the duty. Reminder was sent on 1-2-1984 but the appellant through Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, its local agent sent telex dated 2-2-1984 terminating the respondent's service.
2. ' The appellant raised preliminary issue challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit which was framed and evidence was recorded. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order held that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. ' Mr. Shaiq Usmani the learned counsel for the appellant contended that section 20, C.P.C. Does not apply to the High Court and as appellants are not carrying on business in Pakistan the Court has no jurisdiction. In this regard reference was made to West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation PLD 1964 Kar. 11 where the Court held that the restrictions prescribed by sections 16, 17, 20, C.P.C. Having been removed, the original jurisdiction of the High Court is enlarged. There the suit was filed in respect of immovable property situated in Bahawalpur and the suit was held to be competent. The same principle was followed in Dr. Shabbir Khan v. Abu Dhabi Petroleum Co. Ltd.
4. Karachi PLD 1975 Kar.138. These two judgments have been followed by the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned counsel referred to 22 Indian Appeals 171 but it was rightly held to be distinguishable on facts. Besides this Court will have jurisdiction where any person is amenable to its control and exercise of jurisdiction. The appellant carries on business at Karachi through PNSC. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the nature of business and the manner in which it is carried on does not amount to carrying on business which may confer jurisdiction the Court.
6. According to the learned counsel the agent should be the exclusive agent and should not act as general agents for several parties. The Pakistan National Shipping Corporation is acting as the agent of the appellant in Karachi. In their normal course of business they are not the agent of every shipping company. They are the owners of the vessels. The learned counsel has not been able to substantiate that PNSC acts as general agent for several parties. According to the provisions of the Customs Act every carrier has to give a declaration through its agent for the purposes of clearance of the goods from port. The appellant's vessel regularly call at Karachi and are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Articles were signed at Karachi and service was also terminated here.
7. Even if we exclude the applicability of section 20, the facts that the appellant carries on business regularly at Karachi through its local agent and their vessels regularly call are sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court for the purposes of entertaining suits against the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed in limine.