SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED vs FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK Ss

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

SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK Ss. 9 & 10---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ,O. VII, R. 10 & O. XIII R. 1---Suit for recovery, filing of---Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Scope---Documents admitted/acknowledged by parties---Effect---Suit filed at Rawalpindi ('R')---Held, that in the present case, the admitted documents/agreements (Diminishing Musharakah Financing Agreement etc.) clearly depicted that the parties had mutually agreed to resolve their issues at Courts of Karachi ('K') having exclusive jurisdiction for the determination of their disputes---Based on the agreements between the parties, which had been acknowledged by the parties and the documents filed and relied by the plaintiffs under S. 9 of Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') along with list of documents under O. XIII, R. 1 of the "C.P.C." and under S. 10 of the Ordinance 2001 by the defendant, High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter due to specific and exclusive jurisdiction clauses in all the agreements---High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendant; therefore, the plaint was returned under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for presenting it before a Court of competent jurisdiction---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Suit for recovery, filing of---Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Scope---Exclusive jurisdiction incorporated in agreement regarding a place other than where the suit was filed---Effect---Suit was filed at Rawalpindi ('R')---Held, that in the present case, documents/ agreements (Diminishing Musharakah Financing Agreement etc.) clearly depicted that the parties had mutually agreed to include/incorporate jurisdiction clauses in a clear and unambiguously manner, which showed that the parties had given exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts at Karachi ('K')---Thus, the parties were bound by their terms and conditions for resolution of their disputes---All the agreements were executed on different dates at the registered office of the defendant at Karachi and were not disputed by the parties---Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendant; the plaint was returned under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for presenting it before a Court of competent jurisdiction---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Suit for recovery, filing of---Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Scope---Exclusive jurisdiction clause---'Boilerplate clause'---Scope---Boilerplate clauses---Validity---Question that parties to a contract are faced with is the extent of autonomy they can exercise in choosing an appropriate forum in a "boilerplate clauses"---Henceforth, to avoid the hassle of litigating in a forum, which is inconvenient or time-consuming, parties often mutually agree to litigate their disputes before a specific Court---Such clauses are drafted taking into account the common economic and geographic convenience of the parties---Exclusive jurisdiction clauses enunciate a choice by parties to limit the place of institution of the suit to one forum---Jurisdiction clauses, therefore, relate as to which Courts would hear a dispute---Nevertheless, an exclusive jurisdiction specifies that only the Courts of a particular jurisdiction, such as those of 'K' (Karachi), in the present case, should deal with any disputes arising out of a contract between the parties---In the present case, all the agreements were executed on different dates at the registered office of the defendant at Karachi and this was not disputed by the parties---Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendant; the plaint was returned under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for presenting it before a Court of competent jurisdiction---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK 'Boilerplate clause'---Scope---A boilerplate clause is a legal English term that is used in conjunction with contract law---When forming contracts, parties to the contract often use templates or forms with boilerplate clauses (boilerplate language, used as standard language)---Such clauses refer to the standardized clauses in contracts, and they are to be found towards the end of the agreement---Including boilerplate clauses is the process by which parties to the contract may better define their relationship and the will to provide certainty if terms in the contract are ever disputed---Boilerplate clauses are standard contractual terms that are routinely included in many contracts---In the present case, all the agreements were executed on different dates at the registered office of the defendant at Karachi and this was not disputed by the parties---Lahore High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendant; the plaint was returned under O. VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for presenting it before a Court of competent jurisdiction---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Suit for recovery, filing of---Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Scope---'Boilerplate clauses'---Scope---All commercial and banking contracts/ agreements contain a number of "boilerplate clauses", which are often seen as standard add-ons to the main terms and conditions of the contract---One such "boilerplate clause" relates to jurisdiction and choice of law, and although these can be relatively straightforward when both parties are based in the same jurisdiction, they deserve proper consideration, particularly when the parties to the contract are based in different jurisdictions---In drafting dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts and banking agreements, parties contemplate, inter alia, the most convenient and affordable forums to resolve their disputes through the "boilerplate clauses"---In the present case, all the agreements were executed on different dates at the registered office of the defendant at Karachi and this was not disputed by the parties---Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass any judgment and decree against the defendant; the plaint was returned under O. VII, R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for presenting it before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK Principle---When parties were at controversy regarding point of jurisdiction of Court, it was incumbent upon the Court either to decide question of jurisdiction after giving an opportunity of hearing to parties and then to proceed with the other issues regarding merits of case.

SADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED vs FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK Ss — 2025 CLD 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD