GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.- These are five connected civil revisions Nos. 1349 to 1353 of 1993 arising out of almost a similar factual matrix against identical kind of orders passed in five separate civil suits by the trial court by which it refused to recast a preliminary issue relating to its jurisdiction for shifting onus of proof to the plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff is a private limited company. Its head office was at Karachi. Its Punjab office was at Lahore. The company deals in pesticides. Defendants in the suits were dealers in pesticides. Plaintiff gave pesticides to the defendants in each suit. Deliveries of pesticides were witnessed by Delivery Challans. Cheques in different sums were issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
Promissory-Notes alongwith attached receipts in various sums were also executed by them in favour of the company. In addition, there were affidavits also for supporting payment of the due amount by the defendants to the company.
3. As some amounts for the pesticides supplied to the defendants by the company were due, five suits were instituted by it in the Civil Court at Lahore for the recovery of the outstanding amounts.
Suits were filed in summary jurisdiction under Order XXXVH Civil P.C. In each suit, trial court gave conditional permission for defence upon furnishing of the security for payment of the suit amount.
Thereupon, written statements were flied by the defendants wherein territorial jurisdiction of the civil court at Lahore to entertain the suits was questioned. On 1.3.1993, the trial court settled an issue to resolve the dispute about its jurisdiction. The issue framed by it runs as follows:
1. Whether this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter? OPD
4. Before the settlement of the above preliminary issue, an application under Order VII, Rule 10 Civil P.C. Was filed by the defendants in each suit for directing return of the plaints on account of lack of jurisdiction in the trial Ccuta for their presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiff had submitted a reply to the application and asserted that since the defendants had dealings with the office of the plaintiff company at Lahore, Civil Court at Lahore had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the suits. On 1.3.1993, the trial court look the view that the matter of jurisdiction was based upon factual inquiry which could not be decided summarily without recording evidence of the parties. It found the application to be incompetent and rejected it. It was in this view that preliminary issue on question of jurisdiction was settled by the trial court. Sometimes later, an application under Order XIV. Rule 5 of Civil P.C. For amendment of the preliminary issue and shifting of its onus was submitted on behalf of the defendants in each suit. Plaintiff contested the application. By the impugned orders passed on 17.5.1993, the applications were turned down by the trial court.
Thereupon, above five revision petitions were filed in this court.
5. "It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the civil court at Lahore had the jurisdiction to entertain and try its suits for recovery of moneys against the defendants. Therefore, the preliminary issue instead of being in the negative form must be couched in affirmative form with onus of proof on the plaintiff. I have not been able to appreciate the merit of this contention. Initially, averments in the plaint determine the venue of trial of the suit. It is an agreed premise that in these five suits, Section 20 .Of Civil P.C. Shall regulate the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and try them. The suits arose out of contracts with the defendants. The cause of action> therefore, shall arise at any of the following places viz (1) the place where the contract was made; (2) the plea where the contract was to be performed or performance thereof was completed; (3) the place wherein performance of the contract, any money to which the suit related was expressly or impliedly payable. Further, in the cases in hand, defendants had agreed that action under the contract with them "shall be constituted in any City of Pakistan, waiving for this purpose any other venue". The combined effect of entries in Delivery- Challans, issuance of cheques, passing of promissory-notes and executing receipts in different sums of money by the defendants to the plaintiff, the place of dealings between the parlies and the place of payment of money in respect of pesticides supplied shall have a material bearing on the question of jurisdiction for holding trial of the civil suits. As said above, defendants objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. It was for them to prove ouster of jurisdiction by the civil court at Lahore. Plaintiff had slated necessary facts in the respective plaints for showing that the civil court at Lahore had jurisdiction to try the suits. In my opinion, upon material placed so far before the trial court, it rightly framed preliminary issue in the existing form touching its jurisdiction and correctly placed its onus of proof on the defendants. There was no illegality in regard to the frame of preliminary issue or allocation of its onus of proof. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere in revision. Revision petitions are accordingly, dismissed in limine. Records be relumed to the trial court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.