' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No,258 of 1993 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16-5-1990 dismissing the Civil Suit No,52/1 of 1985 by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore was reversed.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,20,000 as earnest money in regard to a contract between the parties. The same was rescinded by the petitioner No,3. As many as six issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. Issue No,1 was decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent and the suit was held to be time-barred. Issue No,2 was also decided against the respondent by the learned Trial Court in which it is held that the petitioner No,3 and the Executive Engineer had their offices at Jhelum and Rawalpindi and no cause of action had arisen in favour of the respondent-plaintiff at Lahore. Issue No,3 regarding maintainability of the suit in its present form was not pressed. Issue No,5 was decided by the learned Trial Court in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by holding that respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to recover Rs,20,000 as earnest money.
3 . However, by the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Appellate Court decreed the suit of the respondent. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and reversed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from misreading/non-reading of evidence apart from the fact that the same was not sustainable on its own merits. He further submitted that the Civil Colin of Lahore has no jurisdiction over the matter as no cause of action had arisen at Lahore. The office of the Superintending Engineer was located at Gujarat and cause of action if any, had arisen there.
He further argued that by merely impleading the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Public Health Department or the Chief Engineer, Public Health Department, Lahore, could not confer the jurisdiction upon the Civil Court at Lahore as none of these functionaries had done anything in relation to the respondent nor did they do anything in relation to contract. He further submitted that even otherwise the civil suit of the respondents was hopelessly barred by time having been filed beyond the limitation period of three years.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as the same have been passed after due consideration to the relevant aspects of the case and evidence on the record. In support of his contention, he relies on case of Pakistan v. Pak Chroma Leather Company Ltd. (PLD 1983 Lahore 326) to contend that the objection of the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court was not relevant once the Trial Court had recorded the findings on merits of the case.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contract in this case had been admittedly cancelled on 2-6-1981. For filing a suit for recovery of earnest money on rescission of contract, the period of three years has been prescribed by Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Refer the cases of Amna $ibi v. Uditnarain (36 Indian Appeals (Privy Council 44) and Munni Babu v. Kanwar Kamta Singh (AIR 1923 Allahabad 321). Therefore, civil suit could be filed only by 2-6-1984. The question of applying the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act providing the period of limitation to six years would not arise. The findings of the learned Appellate Court on Issue No,1 suffer from patent illegality. It is also clear that the work/contract was to be executed at Jhelum and the earnest money, the subject-matter of the civil suit, was deposited with and forfeited by the Superintending Engineer, Rawalpindi (now Gujrat). The Civil Courts at Lahore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter. The mere fact that Secretary to the Government of the 8 Punjab and the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore were impleaded as parties would not confer the territorial jurisdiction on the Civil Courts at Lahore. They were not even necessary or proper parties. It appears that both these functionaries were impleaded in order to show some nexus with Lahore for filing the civil suit. In the light of provision of section 20 of the C.P.C. Such a civil suit could only have been filed either at Jhelum or at Rawalpindi but certainly not at Lahore. There does not appear to be any valid reason for the learned Appellate Court to reverse the findings of the learned Trial Court on Issue No,2. The precedent case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Here in this case a specific Issue No,2 as to the territorial jurisdiction had been framed by the trial Court and was decided against the respondent. The findings of the learned Appellate Court on this issue is, therefore, not sustainable. It was also proved from the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners as Exhs.D-2; D-3, D-4 and D-5 that the respondent did not respond to the notices. In the presence of such a voluminous documents there does not appear to be any justification for the learned Appellate Court to have taken a view contrary to that of the learned trial Court on Issue No,5. This is particularly so as P.W.2 had stated that he was not aware of the place where the work had to be executed and that the respondent had not transported any material to the site. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1994 passed by the learned Appellate Court suffer from material illegality and irregularity causing great miscarriage of justice.
Even the evidence on record was misread by the learned Appellate Court in material particulars.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 28-11-1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, are set aside and the one passed by the learned Trial Court are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.