1. ' This Misc. Civil Appeal arises out of an order dated 26-8-1990 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Gambat in Suit No, 63/87 whereby plaint has been ordered to be returned to the appellants under Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. In the following circumstances: ' The appellant filed Suit No,63/87 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge,. Gambat for recovery of an amount of Rs,37,00,000 from the respondent. The case of the appellants is that one Dhani Bux held four insurance policies issued by the respondent for various sums, the details whereof are given in para 2 of the plaint. The appellant No,1 was nominee in two policies Nos. 502183761 and 562183945, total amount of sum insured being Rs,4,00,000. The appellant No,2 being widow of the insurer was the nominee in the policies Nos. 502184113 and 502184114 for total sum of Rs,7,00,000. Dhani Bux Shaikh who held the above insurance policies met with an accident at Hinghorja on 26-7-1984 and his body which fell in Rohri canal was recovered on the next day after vigorous search., His death was reported to police and after the recovery of his dead body, postmortem was carried out.
2. However, the appellants gave intimation to respondent about the death of the deceased, whereafter they were required to produce the requisite claim papers which appellants filed with Manager of the respondent at the Zonal Office of respondent at Hyderabad. Lengthy correspondence went on between the parties and ultimately on 24-6-1986 the respondent made a categorical repudiation of the claim. This reply of respondent necessitated the filing of the above suit which included damages of Rs,5,00,000 for harassment and mental torture and incidental expenses, together with interest at 15% per annum from the date claim was filed.
3. ' The respondent filed written statement and denied the claim of the appellants and also raised legal pleas regarding the maintainability of the suit and challenged the jurisdiction of Court to try the suit.
4. ' Issues were settled on 9-2-1988 and in between, various interlocutory applications moved but the respondent were also adjudicated upon. The evidence of the appellants commenced on 21-2-1989, but could not be completed for want of time when it was adjourned. Before the evidence of appellants could be resumed the respondent moved an application under Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C.
5. Contending therein that the suit was wrongly instituted in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gambat. This application was decided by the Trial Court by its order dated 26-8-1990 directing that plaint be returned to the appellants/plaintiffs for its presentation before the proper' forum. The order dated 26-8-1990 is under challenge in this appeal.
6. ' Mr. S. Zahir Hassan the learned Advocate for appellants has contended that during the course of arguments, while opposing the application of the respondent he has referred to the judgment reported in 1981 SCMR 494, and the learned Judge has not taken the same into consideration while deciding the application. It is also contended that the suit was competent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gambat under clause (c) of section 20 of C.P.C. And Explanation II to section 20, C.P.C.
7. Would not be a bar to the suit. He has contended that clause (c) of section 20 of C.P.C. Is independent and is not governed by clauses (a), (b) or the Explanations I and II to section 20 of the C.P.C. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Messrs Brady and Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v.
8. Messrs Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd (1981 SCMR 494) and Messrs Gharibwal Cement Ltd. Lahore v.
9. Messrs Universal Traders, Gakhar Mandi (PLD 1977 Lahore 481). It is contended that in view of the case-law referred to above, suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was competent before the Senior Civil Judge, Gambat and plaint could not be returned under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. As cause of action for the suit had partly accrued.
10. ' Mr. Alay Maqbool Rizvi tie learned counsel for the respondent contended that the proposal for the four insurarce policies held by deceased Dhani Bux was filed at Hyderabad. The deposit of the premium for the proposal of policies was also made at Hyderabad and the claim by the appellants was filed at Hyderabad. As such the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gambat had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjudicate upon the same as no cause of action had accrued to appellants within the territorial jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, Gambat. It is also contended that merely because the appellants/plaintiffs reside at Gambat, it could not be said that they have the cause of action to file the suit at Gambat as the nominees of deceased Dhani Bux. In support of his contention the learned Advocate has placed reliance on Messrs Rahmania Trading Company v.
11. Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Company (PLD 1960 SC 202) and Mian Ghulam Bari v. WAPDA, through its Chairman and 2 others 1991 MLD 313. He has lastly contended, that since appellants had no cause of action to file the suit at Gambat, clause (c) of section 20 of C.P.C., being not available, the appellants' case would be covered by Explanation II to said section which reads: "A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in Pakistan or in respect of any cause of action at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
12. ' It is contended that since respondents had no office at Gambat, the suit could be filed either at the principal office of respondent or at Hyderabad. He has argued that the plaint was rightly returned to the appellants in these circumstances.
13. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order as well as the case-law referred. Section 20 of C.P.C. Reads: "Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a)
14. (b)
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
15. ' To the said section there are two explanations and Explanation II reads: "A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in Pakistan or in respect of any cause of action at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
16. ' Clause (c) of section 20 is not controlled by Explanation II which is not relatable to clauses (a) and
(b) only. Clause (c) is independent. It is held in 1981 SCMR 494 at page 99: "The conjunction 'or' separates all the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 20. Subject to limitations, pecuniary or otherwise, referred in the earlier provisions of the C.P.C., section 20 contains a general provision embracing all personal actions. The plaintiff has three options thereunder to sue: where the defendant or each of the defendants actually resides or carries on business or personally works for gain (clause 'a') or, in case there are more than one defendants, any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain (clause `b) or the place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises (clause 'c'). If the situation in a particular case is not covered by clauses (a) and (b), the suit can be instituted by virtue of clause (c) at the place where cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation II covers an uncertainty, if not ambiguity, with regard to the place where a corporation is supposed to carry on business. Its subject obviously is relatable to the phrase 'carries on business' (used in clauses (a) and (b). It would be violation to the language of section 20 to apply Explanation II to clause (c) whereunder the phrase 'carries on business' would have no meaning. Therefore, it would be unjustified to subordinate clause (c) also to Explanation II".
17. It was thus the option of plaintiffs to file the suit at Gambat, seeking recourse to clause (c) of section 20. The cause of action for filing the suit had accrued to the plaintiffs at Gambat, where deceased was persuaded to get himself insured and 4 policies of Insurance were issued. Merely because documentation took place at Hyderabad, the jurisdiction of Courts at Gambat cannot be said to have been excluded. In 1981 SCMR 494, the case-law reported in PLD 1960 SC 207 and PLD 1977 Lahore 481 was considered and was held as not applicable.
18. ' The case-law referred by the learned Advocate for the respondent 1991 MLD 313 and upheld in PLD 1991 SC 780 lend no support to his case. The appellants/plaintiffs, being the nominees in Insurance policies held by deceased Dhani Bux rightly filed the suit before Senior Civil Judge, Gambat having recourse to clause (c) of section 20, C.P.C. The plaint could not have been returned to appellants for presentation before the proper forum. The suit filed by the appellants shall therefore be deemed to be pending and will be disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gambat expeditiously on its merits. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.