Case Law, Territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts

SECTION 20 OF C.P.C
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS


v AIR 1926 PC 88

v 1970 PLD SC 273

Ordinary residence connotes occasionally or temporary residence

v 1981 SCMR 494

Suit by or against corporation--corporation can be said to be carrying on business at head office, or at place where its branch exists in respect of a cause of action arising wholly or in part at place where its branch office situated.

v 1986 CLC 2173

Suit could be instituted at a place where DEFENDANT or each of them, when there are more defendant in suit at time of filing such suit actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or permanently works for gain.

v 1987 SCMR 393
To or more courts having jurisdiction to trial a suit---agreement between parties, that any dispute arising between them shall be tried only by one of such courts, held, could not be consider contrary to public policy as it would neither contravene provisions laid down in Sec. 28, Contract Act, 1872, nor violate in any manner provisions of Sec. 9 or Sec. 20 of C.P.C.--- appeal allowed and the order of Administrative Civil Judge as well judgment and order of High Court, whereby objection of defendant to the jurisdiction of the court other then the agreed one was overruled was set aside.

v 1992 SCMR 1174
Suit for recovery---Plaint showed that defendant resided at Karachi and their principle office was also located at Karachi---original contract between the parties which has given rise to the filing of the suit for recovery was negotiated an entered into at Karachi---primarily the Courts at Karachi has jurisdiction to trial the suit according to Sec 20(1)(c).

v 1995 CLC 259

v 1997 CLC 1722

v 1998 SCMR 1618

Award arising out of an International Arbitration Agreement---all action can be maintained when a cause of action, wholly or in part arises with in the jurisdiction of a Municipal Courts concerned---not rise to urged that a municipal court can retain an action against a foreigner only when he either permanently or temporarily resides within the limits of a municipal courts or he submits to its jurisdiction.

v 2000 CLC 1405
---S. 7---Civil Procedure Code(V of 1908), S.20 & O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Proceedings for recovery of loan initiated by Bank against the borrower--- Territorial jurisdiction of Banking Court---No specific jurisdictional clause was incorporated in the loan agreement between the parties---Mere incorporated of defendant-company in U.K. or their necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of the Banking Court in Pakistan in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank---Subsequent conduct of borrowers, the change of their ordinary residence, the law applicable to the parties and the forum which would be just and proper would also be decisive factors while deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction---Borrowers having given their address in Pakistan in the affidavit, in the identity card and having admitted in the correspondence with the Bank that they had shifted to Pakistan, they were estopped to raise the question of territorial jurisdiction by asserting that the resided in the U.K., therefore, a Court in U.K, would be more convenient forum was repelled being not tenable—Borrowers being citizens and residents of Pakistan were subject to ordinary law of he land and S.20, C.P.C. was relatable to the territorial jurisdiction where a suit was to be filed.

v PLD 2002 K 420

(P.425) A Where two courts
have may jurisdiction In respect
of same claim then it is the prerogative
of the plaintiff that weighs more in
determining the place of suing.

v 2002 CLC 527

v 2004 MLD 662

---S.28---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 & O.CII, R.10---Territorial Jurisdiction of Court-Suit between principal and agent instituted at place “K”---Agency agreement between parties through such agreement had agreed that in case of any dispute, only Court at place “R” would have jurisdiction to deal with same---Parties were required to abide by terms of their agreement and submit their dispute to Courts at Place “R” ---Plaint was returned for its presentation before the proper court. [p.666] A & B.

v PLJ 1992 SC 289

---S. 20—Dispute between parties-Adjudicaiton of-whether controversy could only be adjudicated upon by Karachi Courts and Courts at Rawalpindi had no jurisdiction—Question of-According to plaint, defendant No. 1 reside at Karachi and their principal office is at Karachi—Original contract as negotiated and entered into at Karachi—Held: Courts at Karachi ubdoubedly have jurisdiction to try suit according to Section 20, sub-clauses (a) and (c) of C.P.C.

v 2003 CLC 1744

v 199CLJ 229

v PLJ 1975 Lahore 56

v 2002 CLD 527

v 2004 YLR 2503
---Territorial jurisdiction---Friction of cause of action will be part of cause of action and will confer jurisdiction on a Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which same occurs [p. 2510] C
---Court may exercise its discretion to avoid injustice or inequity. [p. 2511] I
---Determination of ----Question whether the Court had jurisdiction over he civil matter, was to be decided in accordance with the general provisions in the C.P.C. [p. 2511] N

v PLJ 1986 Lahore 169

v PLJ 1982 Quetta 76

v NLR 1999 Lahore 84

v PLJ 1978 Lahore 233

v 2003 CLJ 268

v AIR 1941 Calcuta 64

v PLD 1952 Dacca 155