1. Application under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant No,1 for return of the plaint.
2. The above application has been moved in suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs,35,00,000 due to fatal accident, wherein Muhammad Hassan lost his life. The plaintiffs are the sons of Muhammad Hasan Soomro who was employed as a conductor with defendant No,1 and was on duty on bus No, GTS-959-758, on 13-12-1991, and due to the accident lost his life within area of Sanghar Police Station due to rash and negligent drive of the defendant No,3 i,e, Driver of the aforesaid bus. The defendant No,1 Sindh Road Transport Corporation has its office at Thandi Sarak, Hyderabad, Sindh.
3. The cause of action is said to have accrued on 30-12-1991 within the area of Sanghar Police Station.
4. The Sindh Road Transport Corporation has filed the W/S and also the application referred to above for return of the plaint on the ground that defendant Sindh Road Transport Corporation having its Principal Office at Hyderabad and no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this. Court.
5. In support of the application under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. Mr. Talmiz Burney has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, no cause of action having been accrued within territorial limits of this Court. The main defendant admittedly works for gain beyond such limits and the defendant No,2 having wrongfully been joined, solely to provide a semblance of jurisdiction.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Nasir Maqsood, Advocate for the plaintiff opposing the application has contended that in view of section 120 of C.P.C. the jurisdiction of this Court extends all over Province of Sindh and sections 16, 17 and 20 cannot be resorted to in order to curtail the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. The counsel for the defendant in support of his contention has placed reliance on following cases:
(1) Firdous Trading Corporation and others v. Japab Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. PLD 1961 Kar. 565, (2) Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109 wherein the case of Firdous Trading Corporation and others (supra) was approved, (3) Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig and another v.
8. Abdul Haq Lashari and others PLD 1994 Kar. 388.
9. The counsel for the plaintiff has referred the following cases; (1) West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Messrs Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 1964 Kar. 11, (2) Messrs Agricides (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Ali Agro Supply Corporation Ltd. 1988 CLC 59.
10. In case of Firdous Trading (supra) Mr. Justice Late Wahiduddin Ahmed (as he then was) opined that the original civil jurisdiction of the Karachi Bench is not an ordinary civil original jurisdiction but of a special nature and only extends to Civil District of Karachi. The following relevant passage of the judgment can be reproduced:-- "Thus, not the question is what is the nature of original jurisdiction exercised by the Karachi Bench of West Pakistan High Court in civil suits in the Civil District of Karachi. Is it the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court or some other jurisdiction? This depends on the interpretation of para.5 of the Establishment of West Pakistan High Court Order, 1955. It reads as under:-- Original civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Bench at Karachi-Notwithstanding anything in this order or in any other law for the time being in force, the Bench of the High Court at Karachi shall have the same original civil jurisdiction for the Civil District of Karachi and the same criminal jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Session for the Sessions Division of Karachi, as were exercisable, immediately before the commencement of this Order, by the Chief Court of Sindh under section 8 of the Sindh Courts Act, 1926 (Sindh Act VII) of 1926: Provided that the Governor-General may by notification in the Official Gazette direct that, as from a specified date such jurisdiction and powers as are mentioned therein shall cease to be exercisable by that Bench and as from that date Bench shall cease to exercise that jurisdiction and powers.
11. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that this jurisdiction is of a special nature and is not the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the West Pakistan otherwise there was no necessity of saying, that the Karachi Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan shall have the same original civil jurisdiction for the Civil District of Karachi as was exercisable by the Chief Court of Sindh under section 8 of the Sindh Courts Act, 1926. It will be further observed that original civil jurisdiction in respect of civil suit in Karachi was not conferred on the High Court as a whole as in the case of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay under their letters patent, but only to the Bench at Karachi. The nature of this jurisdiction is further clarified under para.7 of the amendments in para. (a) of the Schedule of President's Order No,2 of 1956. In sub-clause (4) of para.7, which replaces the original section 45 of the Sindh Courts Act, 1926, it is provided that all decrees and orders in suits and proceedings wherein the subject-matter in amount or value does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, or such sum as the Central Government may by order under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 prescribe, passed before the appointed day, by Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi functioning or exercising the powers and performing the duties as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction shall be deemed- for the purpose of execution to have that the Karachi Bench of West Pakistan High Court is functioning or exercising the powers and performing the duties as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the Civil District of Karachi and not ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court understood under the letters patent of some High Courts in this sub-continent."
12. The above view was approved in case of Pakistan Fishries Ltd. (supra) by the Honourable Supreme Court.
13. In cases of West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and Messrs Agricides (Pvt.) Ltd.
14. (supra) cited by the counsel for the plaintiff, the jurisdiction was assumed in above cases by this Court for the reasons that the agreements were executed between the parties at Karachi i,e, the cause of action having been accrued at Karachi, and the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 C.P.C. were not applicable to High Court. No doubt the above provisions are not applicable to the High Court. The relevant provisions applicable to the present suit contains in section 19 of the C.P.C., which governs the suit for compensation for wrongs to person or movable which is not excluded by section 120. Section 19 reads as follows:-- "Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.?-- 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 another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts."
15. The case in hand is in respect of wrong to the person, the incident took place within the Civil District of Sanghar wherein the deceased Muhammad Hasan Soomro lost his life in the accident. The defendant Sindh Road Transport Corporation has its Principal Office at Hyderabad. The original civil jurisdiction of this Court is confined to Civil District of Karachi, none of the authorities referred by plaintiffs' counsel on the subject lays down that this Court can entertain a suit in the exercise of its special original civil jurisdiction without one or more of the ingredients necessary to attract the jurisdiction of this Court, which while in view of section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure has undoubtedly a very broad base yet there should always be some rationale to attract that jurisdiction. There must be some jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke jurisdiction. Some may be either the defendants residing or carrying on business or in cases of plurality one of the defendants being so subject or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising or property, subject-matter of the suit, being situate or a defendant firm or company having a main or branch office within the jurisdiction which can attract the original civil jurisdiction of this Court. In the absence of at least one of these aspects the jurisdiction would not be attracted. The presence of section 120 on the statute book cannot mean and was never meant to mean that a High Court, covered by that section, could exercise jurisdiction merely for the asking without any jurisdictional fact being pleaded or shown. The only logical effect of section 120 of the Code seems to be that, subject to discretion of the Court itself, the technicalities in sections 16, 17 and 20 cannot be pressed into service to divest a High Court of its original civil jurisdiction. The Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. (supra) opines that the power of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction to entertain and try civil suits directly at the Karachi "seat of this Court is in relation of Civil District of Karachi alone" and does not extend to the "rest of the area of Sindh Province, falling within" the Court's territorial jurisdiction.
16. The applicable provision of section 19 of the C.P.C. which is not excluded by section 120, which is specific as to institution of suits for compensation for wrongs done to person or movable property, enjoins that 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 again 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. The implicit rule for institution of suits for wrongs done to person or to movable property should be to institute such suits in the Court where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises such suits may also, at the option of the plaintiff, he may institute in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. On the basis of section 19, therefore, in spite of the fact that the cause of action for this suit arose at Sanghar, it could be instituted at Karachi, if the defendants were residing or carrying on business or working for gain within the Civil District Karachi. Obviously, the defendant No,1 is located at Hyderabad, and in so far as the defendant No,3 is concerned, the Government of Sindh can neither be said to reside nor to carry on business nor work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court because this qualification applies to only natural person, as opined by Mr. Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed (as he then was), now Judge of the Supreme Court in case of Abdur Rahim v. Abdul Haq Lashari PLD 1994 Kar. 388.
17. In the present case, neither the cause of action has accrued, within the Civil District of Karachi nor the main defendant, Sindh Road Transport Corporation Office, is situated in Karachi. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
18. Resultantly, the plaint of the suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. These are the reasons for the short order announced on 20-10-1998.