' In this suit for recovery, in reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the defendants Nos.1 to 8 and 10, an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was raised inter alia that "as per clause 10.04 of Annexure "C/3", it was mutually agreed between the parties that "A Court of appropriate jurisdiction at Karachi shall be the proper Court to entertain all matters". Relying upon the abovementioned clause, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that a Court of appropriate jurisdiction at Karachi shall have the jurisdiction to entertain all matters arising out of or under the agreement, the Court at Lahore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reference has been made to Messrs Kadir Motors (Regd.), Rawalpindi v. Messrs National Motors Ltd., Karachi 1992 SCM R 1174 and Messrs E.F.U. General Insurance Limited and others v. Fahimul Haq 1997 CLC 1441.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submits that other agreements were also arrived at between the parties, but all of them do not contain such a clause. It is contended that as the property otherwise is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit has rightly been filed and can proceed in accordance with law. Reference has been made to Order II, Rule 3, C.P.C. And section 16, C.P.C. As also to The Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development, Government of the Punjab through its Director, Lahore and 3 others v. Messrs Masood Auto Stores through Masood Ahmad Malik, Partners, Lahore PLD 1991 Lah.
174.
3. There is no denial of the tact that clause 10.04 in agreement dated 15-2-1988 was incorporated by agreement and consent of both parties, which is duly signed by them. I was agreed that a Court of appropriate jurisdiction at Karachi shall be the proper Court to entertain all matters arising out of or under the agreement. Admittedly the said agreement was executed and signed at Karachi. All other allied agreements were also executed and signed at Karachi. In State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCM R 393, an objection to the , tiling of the suit at Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) was raised by the appellant that the parties had agreed that it will be Civil Court at Lahore which will have jurisdiction in the matter. The objection as to the territorial jurisdiction so taken by the appellant was overruled by the trial Court, which order was maintained by the High Court. On appeal their Lordships of the Supreme Court after considering the effect and import of section 28 of the. Contract Act and sections 9 and 20, C.P.C. Held that when two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try a suit and the parties mutually agreed to choose, or taken their dispute to one of them, there is no violation of the law nor was it contrary to the public policy. The appeal was accordingly accepted taking the view that it was the Lahore Court, which had jurisdiction in the matter. In Messrs Kadir Motors (Regd.), Rawalpindi v. Messrs National Motors Ltd., Karachi and 3 others 1992 SCM R 1174, it was observed that "parties could select and decide by agreement to get their disputes decided by a particular Court for their convenience". In the case of Messrs E.F.U. General Insurance Limited and others (supra), also a similar view was taken by a Division Bench of High Court.
4. In the present case, registered office of defendants is at Karachi, but has a branch office and a unit at Textile Free Industrial Area, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur as per averments in paragraph No,5 of the plaint. The addressees of rest of the defendants as mentioned in the plaint are also of Karachi. It appears that parties of their volition and consent and in particular the plaintiff keeping in view its convenience exercised choice as to the Court at Karachi for all matters arising out of or under the agreement. It is not the case of either of the parties that Karachi Court would have no jurisdiction in the matter. The choice so made by the parties binds them which is neither illegal nor contrary to the public policy. The non-inclusion of such a clause in other agreements would not make any difference inasmuch as clause 10.04 takes care of all matters arising out of or under the agreement. The objection so raised by the learned counsel for the defendants has substance and prevails.
5. In this view of the matter, suit ought to have been filed in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction at Karachi and not before this Court. The plaint is thus, liable to be returned for its presentation before the appropriate Court at Karachi. .