1. ' The plaintiff, a manufacturer of motorcycles, has filed this suit against the defendant who was appointed dealer for sale of Suzuki Motorcycles at Gujranwala pursuant to request contained in letter, dated 1-10-1995. According to the plaintiff, it received orders from the defendant for supply of motorcycles which were delivered against sale invoices and delivery challans on credit basis. The defendant used to remit payment periodically and statement of account was regularly maintained by the plaintiff at Karachi showing the balance amount outstanding against the defendant towards price of the motorcycles. The defendant had acknowledged its liability to make payment of the amount due to the plaintiff through various letters some of which have been produced as Exhs.3/3, 3/4 and 3/5. On 2-12-1995, the defendant is stated to have issued a cheque drawn on National Bank of Pakistan, Adda Gondlanwala Branch, Gujranwala which was dishonoured. The cheque has been produced as Exh.3/6. The defendant was required to clear the balance of the outstanding amount but without any success. The balance outstanding amount according to the statement of account stands at Rs,1,698,756. The present suit has been filed for recovery of the above-stated amount claimed as outstanding on account of the balance sale price of motorcycles supplied to the defendant. Before institution of the case, demand notice including legal notice are claimed to have been served upon the defendant demanding re-payment.
2. ' Despite service of summons effected through substituted mode which was -held good by the Additional Registrar (0.S.) of this Court on 10-12-1998, the defendant has failed to turn up and defend the proceedings. The matter has, therefore, been put up for final disposal.
3. ' 'The plaintiff has examined one Midhat Azeem Kidwai as Exh.3 who has produced various documents in support of the claim. The statement of account Exh.3/2 produced by the said Midhat Azeem Kidwai shows supply of motorcycles to the defendant from time to time with corresponding debit entries. The payments received from the defendant are shown under the credit column and upon adjustment of the debit and credit entries, balance is struck. The final amount shown outstanding against the defendant is Rs,1,698,756. The said witness of the plaintiff has further produced Letters Exhs.3/3, 3/4 and 3/5 received from the defendant acknowledging liability to pay the outstanding amount. The dishonoured cheque, dated 2-12-1995 in the sum of Rs,1,64,110 favouring the plaintiff has also been produced as Exh.3/6. This is followed by two demand notices which include legal notice, dated 18th May, 1997 demanding re-payment of balance amount.
4. Although the amount shown in the legal notice is different from the figure shown as outstanding in the statement of account, Exh.3/2, the learned counsel for the plaintiff explains that upon adjustment and reconciliation of figures, the amount claimed in the suit has been reached which is in consonance with the sum mentioned in the statement of account. The factum of delivery of the motorcycles is further substantiated by the delivery challans, sale invoices and debit notes produced as Exh.3/9. The evidence produced by the plaintiff has remained unrebutted and entitles it to decree for recovery of the outstanding amount.
5. ' During arguments, partly heard on 9-2-1999, I had called upon the learned counsel for plaintiff to satisfy the Court about territorial jurisdiction in the matter due to statement made by Midhat Azeem Kidwai, Exh.3, to the effect that the motorcycles were delivered to the defendant at Gujranwala. The learned counsel for plaintiff had then sought time to prepare himself in relation to the query made by the Court. Mr. S. Amjad Hussain has urged that this Court has territorial jurisdiction in the matter, for, the letter from the defendant, for appointment as dealer was received at Karachi, the orders for supply of motorcycles were received invariably at Karachi whereupon delivery challan and sale invoices were again prepared at Karachi. It is further pointed out that the defendant used to remit payment to the plaintiff at Karachi and the contract for appointment of defendant and supplying motorcycles to him, on credit basis, was approved at Karachi. The learned counsel has referred to judgments in Messrs Agricides (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Ali Agro Supply Corporation Ltd. 1988 CLC 59, West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Messrs Sheikh Muhammad Amin & Co. 1992 CLC 2047 and Muhammad Yasin v. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Aziz PLD 1993 SC 395. The last-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court however, is found based on the factum of delivery of goods having taken place within the territorial limits of the Court which had passed the decree. In the present case, according to the plaintiff's own witness, delivery of motorcycles was effected at Gujranwala. Therefore, the last-mentioned judgment, in my view, is of no help to the plaintiff. As regards the remaining two judgments of this Court, referred above, it is held that occurrence of even part of the cause of action including approval of contract gives jurisdiction pertaining to the concerned area. The following observations made in the case of W.P.I.D.C. v. Muhammad Amin & Co. (supra) can usefully be reproduced:-- "It is further contended by the learned counsel for the P.I.D.C. That apart from it after the contract was entered into between the parties the time for performance in the agreement was changed at the request of Sheikh Muhammad Amin and such alteration in the contract had taken place at Karachi and as such the breach of the performance of the novated contract could be enforced at Karachi. Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the provisions contained in sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code shall not apply to the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to the recovery of immovable property, partition of immovable property, foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage of or charge upon immovable property determination of any right or interest in the immovable property, compensation for wrong to immovable property and for recovery of movable property actually under distraint of attachment. Section 17 deals with the situation where an immovable property in respect whereof a suit is to be filed to obtain relief for compensation of wrong to an immovable property and it provides that where the property is situated within local limits and jurisdiction of two Courts the suit could be filed in any one of such Courts. Section 20 provides that a suit is to be instituted where defendant or defendants reside or cause of action arises. Although the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the cause of action has arisen within its local limits of the jurisdiction. No doubt the letter, dated 3-5-1965 by which the offer of Sheikh Muhammad Amin was accepted was written by the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Lahore but it is quite clear from the endorsement on that lever that the acceptance of the offer of Sheikh Muhammad Amin was made with the consent of Deputy General Manager, Sugar, P.I.D.C., Kutchery Road, Karachi, which was accorded to the contract on 24-5-1967. As the contract entered with the consent of P.I.D.C., Karachi, the breach of the agreement, could be enforced at Karachi. Apart from it the original contract between the parties provided for delivery of the entire contracted quantity, of 8,000 bags of sugar by June, 1967. It is an admitted position in the, case that on 13th June, 1967 Sheikh Muhammad Amin applied to Deputy General Manager, Sugar, P.I.D.C., Karachi requesting the latter to change the delivery date from June to July and August- in instalments of 400 bags each in every month. The change in the delivery time was granted at Karachi and accordingly breach of the altered contract which provides for delivery of contracted goods in two instalments of 400 bags each in July and August respectively could be enforced at Karachi. We are, therefore, of the view that the suit filed by P.I.D.C. At Karachi was fully competent and this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the above suit."
6. ' Likewise, the observations contained in the case of Messrs Agricides (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) by a learned Single Judge of this Court are pertinent in relation to the effect of section 120, C.P.C. And it is held that the jurisdiction of this Court is enlarged by removing restrictions imposed under sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C. Applying the test, as above, I find that the appointment of defendant as dealer was approved by the plaintiff at Karachi and the delivery challans and sale invoices were also prepared at Karachi which do invest this Court with he territorial jurisdiction to decide the present matter.
7. ' In the circumstances, the suit is decreed against defendant in the sum of Rs,1,698,756 with mark- up at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its payment. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the proceedings.