MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.--- This appeal, with the leave of the Court, arises out of an order passed by the High Court on May 9, 1997, whereby the transfer application filed by Shaukat Zaman, respondent, was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant herein was transferred from the Court of District Judge, Rawalakot to District Judge, Pallandri for hearing and disposal under law.
2. The precise facts are that a transfer application was filed by respondent in the High Court that the suit filed by appellant in the Court of District Judge, Rawalakot be transferred to District Judge, Pallandri on the ground that the respondent is resident of Pallandri and the cause of action allegedly accrued to the plaintiff-appellant in respect of a bridge which is also within the territorial limits of Pallandri District as such the suit should have been filed in the Court of District Judge, Pallandri but with mala fide intention the same had been filed in the Court of District Judge, Rawalakot. A learned Judge in the High Court accepted the application filed by respondent and ordered the transfer of suit from the,Court of District Judge, Rawalakot to the Court of District Judge, Pallandri by observing as under:-- .
"Under section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff is bound to file his suit in the Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant at the time of filing of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries business or works for gain. In this case admittedly the petitioner against whom the suit has been filed, resides within the local limits of District Pallandri.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It was vehemently contended by Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, that it escaped the attention of the learned Judge that clause (c) of section 20, Civil Procedure Code positively provides that a suit shall also be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose but ignoring this provision of law the learned Judge adhered to only clauses (a) and (b) of section 20 referred above. The learned counsel submitted that appellant paid Rs,.13,18,400 through cheques to the respondent and cheques were cashed by the Bank at Rawalakot and the Bank employees who received cheque and made the payment are also employed at Rawalakot. The office of Public. Works Department is also situated at Rawalakot. The officials of P.W.D. Are posted at Rawalakot and the Xen of the district is also at Rawalakot whereas respondent is posted at Pallandri. In this view of the matter not only a part of cause of action but a substantial cause of action arose at Rawalakot, thus, the District Judge, Rawalakot was competent to hear the suit and there was no justification whatsoever for transferring the case to District Judge Pallandri. It was also emphasised that the inconvenience and hardship caused to the appellant will be greater than to the respondent who has to prove his case by producing almost all the relevant witnesses from Rawalakot incurring a lot of expenditure and expense.
4. In reply Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, the learned counsel for respondent controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the defendant resides at Rawalakot and the cause of action allegedly accrued to plaintiff-appellant in respect of a bridge which is also within territorial limits of Pallandri District as such the suit should have been filed in the Court of District Judge, Pallandri. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents the impugned order of the High Court was open to no exception.
5. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it may be observed that for determining the jurisdiction of a Court wherein a suit is to be filed clauses (a) and (b) of section 20, C.P.C. Are not the only provisions but clause (c) of the aforesaid section postulates that a suit shall also be filed in a Court within the local limits bf whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose. A Court has jurisdiction to hear a case where a part of the cause of action arises within the local limits of its jurisdiction. If the creation of the right and the infringement thereof both happen at a particular place, the whole cause of action will be said to arise there. But if they take place at different places, parts of the cause of action arise in those different places. Where the infringement itself is in respect of several items, parts of the cause of action arise in the several places of infringement in respect of those items. It must be remembered that even afraction of a cause of action is a part of the cause of action and, therefore, if even a fraction of the cause of action accrues within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court, that Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Clause (c) of section 20 is based on broad principle to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconvenience to the parties. In the instant case not only a part of cause of action arose at Rawalakot but a substantial part of it arose at Rawalakot, therefore, the District Judge, Rawalakot was competent to hear and dispose of the suit.
In a reported case Messrs Ever Shine Candle Industries Lahore and 36 others v. Muhammad Jamil PLD 1972 Lah. 845 it was observed at page 846 as under:-- "The consensus of judicial authority on the question of transfer of a case on the ground of convenience and expense is that ordinarily a plaintiff as arbiter has has the right to choose his forum and the Court should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with this right but if the defendant proves a preponderance of convenience in his favour, transfer may be granted. In the instant case, although the petitioners-defendants belong to Lahore yet this does not necessarily mean that in defending the suit at Rawalpindi it will be necessary for all of them to visit that town, because they can very well-prosecute the case at Rawalpindi through counsel and if in order to defend the suit against them they have to produce evidence the same can be examined either in Court or on commission in accordance with law and expense may be curtailed in that manner.
The above citation is supported by numerous authorities some of them may usefully be reproduced:-- "Thakur Narindra Bikram Jit Singh and another v. Thakurain Sheo Ratan Kaur AIR 1923 Oudh 30; Laxmikant and others v. Govindra and others AIR 1927 Nag. 219; Inayat Ullah Khan v. Nisar Ahmad Khan AIR 1922 All. 65; Shiv Parshad v. Kanhaya Shah Ruchi Shah and another AIR 1920 Lah. 381 and Roop Chand and others v. Gokul Chand and others AIR 1924 Lah. 249."
PLD 1993 SC 395 it was observed in the following manner:-- ---Suit for recovery of amount can, be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose. Plaintiff who was resident of Quetta and had his business at Quetta reached an agreement with the defendant who were residents of Faisalabad for the supply of coal. Coal was to be despatched through the Goods Company at Quetta to Faisalabad and after receiving the same payment had to be made. Part of cause of action having accrued at Quetta suit for recovery of amount could be instituted at Quetta.--- 6: The learned Judge in the High Court did not transfer the case from Rawalakot to Pallandri on the basis of comparative inconvenience caused to the parties. In our view if the case is transferred to Pallandri from Rawalakot the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff and his witnesses who belong to Rawalakot will be greater than that of the respondents. As said earlier, it is the option of the plaintiff to choose his forum for instituting the suit where the cause of action wholly or partly arose and the Court should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with his right.