SHABBIR AHMED vs JS GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED through CEO S — 2025 CLD 1171 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHABBIR AHMED VS JS GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED through CEO S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 20 & O. VII, R. 10---Suits for recovery of finances, filing of---Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Scope---Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises---Determination---Applications for return of plaints filed by the appellants/defendants were dismissed by the Single Judge of High Court in terms of Clause "c" of S. 20, C.P.C.---Validity---Clauses "a", "b "and "c "of S. 20, C.P.C., are not mutually exclusive to one and other---It is not the scheme of S. 20, C.P.C. that in the cases where clause "a" is attracted, clause "b" and "c" would be excluded or in case clause "b" or "c" is attracted, clause "a" would be excluded and rendered irrelevant---Joint reading of clauses "a", "b" and "c" of S. 20, C.P.C., depicts that the plot thereunder is inclusively implying that if any of the provisions is attracted the plaintiff would have an option to take its benefit and file the suit accordingly---Three clauses are mutually beneficial to each other and provide to the plaintiff an opportunity to file the suit at either of the places transcribed thereunder---This could be a place where defendant (s) either resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, but in case, he resides at place "a", carries on business at place "b" and personally works for gain at place "c", then plaintiff will have liberty to file suit at either place, thus, the defendant cannot question maintainability of the suit on the ground that since he/she is living /residing at place "a", the plaintiff cannot file the suit at place "b", where he/she carries on business, because the proposition under S. 20, C.P.C. is not mutually exclusive or destructive, but inclusive, accommodative and beneficial---For deciding an application under O.VII, R. 10, C.P.C., the facts disclosed in the plaint are to be considered true on their face value for the purpose of deciding atleast territorial jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate the matter---All the facts narrated in the plaint prima facie show jurisdiction of the court at Karachi in the matter in terms of clause "c" of S. 20, C.P.C.---Appellants while making counter claim in the suit had admitted the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Karachi---When the appellants in their own written statement, while putting up counter claim, had accepted territorial jurisdiction of the court, their summersault in the shape of applications under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., at later stage could not be given much credence, not the least when in support of such applications nothing substantial had been brought before the court for excluding a consideration under clause "c" of S. 20, C.P.C., barring the fact that the respondents were residents of Lahore and particularly when by admitting the fact that certain activities benefiting the appellants had taken place at Karachi, the appellants had sealed the jurisdiction of the court at Karachi---High Court Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

SHABBIR AHMED vs JS GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED through CEO S — 2025 CLD 1171 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD