' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 arises out of a petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Rebublic of Pakistan, 1973 filed by the appellant complaining that her husband Khawaja Majeed Ahmad has been taken into custody from Lahore by the respondents without any lawful authority.
2. For the present purposes it is unnecessary to state the grounds on which this petition was based.
Suffice it to say that one of the prayers made in the Constitutional petition was that the arrest of petitioner's husband from Lahore on 20-9-1995 by respondents Nos.1 to 3 be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The other part of the prayer however related to proceedings being taken to his extradition to United States of America.
3. An objection was raised by the office that the petition should be filed by the Rawalpindi Bench of this Court. In reply it was stated by the petitioner that as her husband had been arrested at Lahore the petition lies at the Principal Seat. The matter was placed as an objection case before our brother Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J. On 5-11-1995 who was pleased to uphold the office objection and directed that the petition be returned to the petitioner so as to enable her to file the same before the appropriate forum. In coming to this conclusion the learned Single Judge noticed that the arrest of the husband of the petitioner was made by the functionaries of Directorate of Federal Investigating Agency, pursuant to warrants issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Islamabad.
4. In support of this appeal, Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate has contended that as the husband of the appellant was arrested from Lahore a part of cause of action had arisen here and therefore, the petitioner was well within her right to file the Constitutional petition at the Principal Seat of this Court.
5. We have also heard Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Deputy Attorney-General and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, both of whom did not dispute the correctness of the legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant though they deny that the husband of the appellant had in fact been arrested at Lahore.
6. Article 175 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides for setting of 4 different High Courts. The jurisdiction of each of which extends over the entire province. As regards the Lahore High Court all the areas which form part of Province of Punjab and Federal territory of Islamabad are subject to its jurisdiction. After setting up of Benches in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (B) of Article 7 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 the Governor of Punjab in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court promulgated Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981. For the purposes of present controversy its rule 3 is relevant which provides that: "All matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench."
' The Supreme Court of Pakistan has recently in the case of Syed Ahmad Ali Rizvi and another v. The State PLD 1995 SC 500 held that notwithstanding the aforesaid rules .a. Judge of the High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire province and the areas falling within the territorial limits of this Court. More properly the question as to whether a cause is to be heard at the Principal Seat or at any of the Benches of the Court is of administrative convenience rather than the one effecting the right of individual or jurisdiction of the Court.
7. The learned Deputy Attorney-General as also the learned Assistant Advocate-General was not in a position to deny that if a person is taken into custody at a particular place, a part of cause of action arises at that place and detention of that person can be challenged notwithstanding his subsequent removal elsewhere. This concession is in accord with law laid down in Ch. Manzoor Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan etc. PLD 1975 SC 66. It follows, therefore, that as the husband of the petitioner was arrested at Lahore over which the Principal Seat exercised jurisdiction, the Constitutional petition filed at the Principal Seat was clearly competent, as the cause of action or at least a part of it had arisen here. Unfortunately, the attention of the learned Single Judge does not appear to have been drawn to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ch. Manzoor Ellahi's case supra. The fact that arrest of the petitioner's husband was made pursuant to the warrants issued at Islamabad was not of any consequence as regards the question as to whether the Constitutional petition could be filed at the Principal Seat.
' In view of what has been stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5-11-1995 and direct that the Constitutional petition of the appellant shall be entertained at Principal Seat and be placed before the appropriate Bench. Needless to say that it shall, be open to the respondents to raise all objections as permissible in law at the hearing of the petition.
' No order as to costs.