MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.- The only point for determination in this revision petition is "whether preliminary objection of the defendants regarding territorial jurisdiction of Lahore Court" was correctly decided by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore.
2. A look at the plaint indicates that the respondent-instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen Crores) as compensation for damage caused to him on account of chain of malicious wrongful acts of the present petitioners. It was alleged therein that the plaintiff/respondent had held senior/high offices in Banking hierarchy of Pakistan and was/is known in the public as well as in financial circle as an outstanding bankers; that the defendant Mr. M.R. Khan, entertain feelings of jealousy towards the plaintiff and had been instrumental in circulating unfounded allegations against the plaintiff.
3. The Deputy Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, conducted inquiries in respect of these allegations and found the plaintiff innocent. It was further averred in the plaint that despite this finding, the defendant M.R. Khan continued his nefarious efforts. The Federal Ombudsman also found the plaintiff innocent.
4. With the rise of Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Piracha, and Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, in power, Mr. M.R. Khan, relaunched his campaign and got started fresh departmental inquiries against the plaintiff. Also the Director General of the Federal Investing Agency was used to get criminal cases registered against the plaintiff. It was further averred that in this atmosphere, the plaintiff was reared from service and he joind the Bank of Punjab as the Chairman/Managing Director; that still the nefarious pursuits were not given up and number of other criminal cases were got registered against the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that these acts defamed the petitioner and lowered the image of the plaintiff in the eyes of both the financial as well as the.Public circles.
5. On 28.3.1990, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C, wherein an objection was taken that the alleged wrongful actions were either committed at Islamabad or Karachi, therefore, the Lahore Court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, by order dated 91.7.1990 rejected the application by holding that the plaintiff was the Chairman/Managing Director of Bank of Punjab, at Lahore so the Court at Lahore had the jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition contended that all wrongful acts attributed to the petitioners, were committed either at Islamabad or at Karachi, so the Court at Lahore lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. Reliance was placed on Section 19 of the CPC.
This section gives option to the plaintiff to file the suit within the local limits of a Court wherein the wrong is done or within the jurisdiction of whom the defendants reside or carry on business or personally work for gain. It was stressed that the plaintiff could file the suit in Court either at Islamabad or at Karachi. Strength was sought from Mulsing Dowlatram v. Fateh Chand Anrai and another (AIR 1936 Sind 229), Muhammad Jewan and another v. Syed Abdul Oasim and 3 others (1979 C.L.C. 186) Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bibi (PLD 1990 SC 28), Sohan Singh and another v. G.B. Riddick (AIR 1922 Lahore 164), and Bisser Misser and others v. Emperor (AIR 1914 Cal. 256)
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which the effect of wrongful act was caused, had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. A reference was made to Illustration (b) to section 19 ibid and was argued that all the wrongful acts were published in the newspapers in circulation at Lahore; that the prestige of the respondent suffered blow in Banking circle and in the eyes of public at Lahore. Aid was solicited from haveli Shah & another v. Khan Saheb Sheikh Painda Khan (AIR 1926 P.C. 88), The Board of Control for Cricket in Pakistan v. M/s Sind Cricket Association. Hyderabad (1980 C.L.C. 683), Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Azad Government of the State of J & K etc. (1986 C.L.C. 2173) and Abdul Ghaffar Lakhani v. Federal Government of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD J986 Karachi 525).
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in the light of submissions made by both the parties. Before I proceed to determine the contentions of parties, it will be appropriate to notice the relevant paragraphs of the plaint. Paragraphs No.20 and 22 read as follows:- "20) That the malafide acts committed by the defendants have substantially damaged the reputation and standing of the plaintiff. His entire Career has been put in jeopardy. The plaintiff has been lowered in the estimation of his peers. Furthermore, he has been subjected to intense anxiety for prolonged periods for no fault of his at all plaintiff had to take remedial steps under great stress.
Extensive financial implications are involved.
21) ...
22) That the amount sought as compensation by the plaintiff for the damage caused to him by the wrongful and malafide acts on the part of the defendants are stated and claimed as under: i) Damage sustained to the standing and = Rs.5 Crores, reputation of the plaintiff in the Banking and Financial Circles both in Pakistan and abroad. ii) Damage to the reputation and = Rs.3 Crores standing in the eyes of the General Public. iii) Mental anguish caused to plaintiff =Rs. 5 Crores for prolonged periods on account of suspense and tension directly resulting from the acts of the defendants. iv) Jeopardy to the further career of = Rs.l, crore the plaintiff. v) Remedial steps taken by the = . Rs.50 lacs, plaintiff to protect himself and the anxiety generated on this account. vi) Malicious prosecution in breach of = Rs.50, lacs.
Statutory Indemnity. (Total: Rupees Fifteen Crores."
9. It is evident from the plaint that the damages have been claimed on account of loss to reputation/standing of the plaintiff on account of doing the alleged wrongful and malicious acts.
On account of loss of reputation in Banking/Financial circle and in the eyes of general public, five Crores and three Crores have been claimed as compensation respectively. It is, therefore, obvious that the suit has been filed for the recovery of damages on account of loss to reputation as well as for the commission of wrongful and malicious acts.
10. Having noticed these facts in plaint, now I turn fo material provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, dealing with the place of suing. These are Section 15 to 20 of the C.P.C. Section 15 is in general terms. It lays down that every suit shall be filed in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
Sections 16,17 and 18 regulate the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of suit pertaining to immovable property. Sections I6 and 17 specify Courts in which the suit relating to immovable property and for recovery of movable property actually under attachment are to be instituted.
Section 18 is invoked where it is uncertain within the local limit of jurisdiction of which Court the immovable property is situate. Section 19 deals with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables while section 20 specifies the Court in which the other suits are instituted. For the purpose of this case sections 19 and 20 are relevant. These are as under:- "19. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
"20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises." ,
11. It is a settled principle that the sections relating to territorial jurisdiction must be construed in such a manner that they will cover each and every cause of action and each and every case under section 9 of the Code. Any construction that will whittle do,wn the remedy is not to be followed. A bare look at section 19 makes it clear that this section deals with suit relating to claim of compensation in respect of wrong done to person or to movable property. It contemplates that suit an be filed within the local limits of jurisdiction of Court in which the wrong is done or the Court within the limits of which defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Illustration (b) of this section also specifies that Court where defamatory statement is published in other p ace than the place where the defendant ordinarily resides, or works for gain. The suit may be filed in either of Court.
12. It is quite dear that in section 19 instead of phrase "cause of action, wholly or any part" the word "wrong done" has been used. Neither the words " cause of action" nor "wrong done" have been defined in the Code. The words "cause of action" and the word "wrong" have been defined in Black Law Dictionary in following words:- CAUSE OF ACTION The fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. The legal effect of an occurrence in terms of redress to a party to occurrence. A situation or state of facts which would entitle party to sustain action and give him right to seek a judicial remedy in his behalf.
Thompson v. Zurich Ins. Co., D.C. Minn., 309 F. Supp. 1178, 1181 Fact, or a state of facts, to which law sought to the enforced against a person or thing applies. Facts which give rise to one or more relations of right-duty between two or more persons. Failure to perform legal obligation to do, or refrain from performance of, some act. Matter for which action may be maintained. Unlawful violation or invasion of right. The right which a party has to institute a judicial proceeding."
WRONG: "A violation of the legal lights of another; an invasion of right to the damage of the parties who suffer it, especially a tort. State ex rel. And to Use of Donelon v. Deuser, 345 No.134 SS.W. 2d 132,
133. It usually signifies injury to person, property or relative, noncontractual rights of another than wrongdoer, with or without force, but, in more extended sense, includes violation of contract.
The idea of rights naturally suggests the correlative one of wrongs; for every right is capable of being violated. A right to receive payment for goods sold (for example) implies a wrong tin the part of him who owes, but withholds the price; a right to live in personal security; a wrong on the part of him who commits personal violence. And therefore, while in a general point of view the law is intended for the establishment and maintenance of rights, we find it, on closer examination, to be dealing both with rights and wrongs. It first fixes the character and definition of rights and then with a view to their effectual security, proceeds to define wrongs, and to devise the means by which the latter shall be prevented or redressed."
13. From the foregone examination of the two words, I am quite clear that the phrase "wrong done" in section 19 of the Code is of were amplitude. It embraces all the facts which are necessary tb establish the plaintiff rights to restitutive relief of compensation in relation to the loss of prestige of person wronged. It is thus quite clear that wrong may be committed at one place and its resultant injury may be caused at another place. The word "Wrong done" comprises of facts starting from commission of act to its resultant effect. In such a case the plaintiff has an option to file the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court where the wrongful act was committed or in the jurisdiction of the Court wherein the resultant injury was caused or where the defendant ordinarily resides works for gain.
14. The authorities cited by both the learned counsel proceed on distinguishable facts and are not appliable to the facts of this case.
15. Applying of the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case it is quite clear that wrongful acts were committed either at Islamabad or at Karachi but the resultant effect was caused at Lahore where the respondent-plaintiff was occupying the post of Chairman/Managing Director of Punjab Bank.
16. 1h the light of reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this petition. The order of the trial Court is not open to any exception. It is neither contrary to law nor without jurisdiction nor is in excess of jurisdiction. Accordingly this petition is dismissed in limine.