- S
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRES
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALT AKBAR NAQVI
Th%. 
H
Civil Appeal No.997 of 2010.
(On appeal against the order dated 25.09.2010
P
ic
assed by the Lahore High Court, Muirart Bench,
Multan in PM No 198-2003)
Rana Muhammad Hanif Khan (decd) through LRs.
Versus 
Appellant(s)
Saddiq Khan (deed) through LRs. 
. - .Respondent(s
For the Appellant(s): 
Rain M. Zahid, ASC.
(via video-link from Lahore)
For Respondents.] (I -11) 
Nem o.
For Respondent No. 02 
Ex-parte.
Date of Hearing: 14.02.2022
PRDER
1JAZ UL AWSAN, J.- This appeal is directed
against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated
23.06.2010 rendered in RFA No.198 of 2003 filed by the
Respondents. Through the impugned judgment, the judgment
and decree dated 21.11.2003 passed by the Trial Court was
set aside and it was held that the Civil Court(s) of Pakistan
had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which, even
otherwise, was barred by time.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of
this Appeal are that, the Appellants filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.55,67,633/ as comPensationIdages As per the plaint,
one Kalu Khan was a joint owner in equal share(s) with Atta
Muhammad in respect of land measuring 1081 acres of Rich
0
Civil Appeal No.997 of 2010. 
2
Rice Ranch in Willow Glen, California, USA. He executed a
Will in respect of his entire property and created a Trust. One
Faza.l Muhammad was appointed as Trustee through the Will
and the beneficiaries of the Trust were his brothers namely
Abdul Majeed Khan, Ahmed Khan and three sons of his
deceased brother namely Siddique Khan, Rana Muhammad
Hanif Khan and Aziz-ur-Rehman. The shares of the
beneficiaries as determined in the Trust were 1/3rd to each
brother and 1/9th to each nephew of the deceased Kalu Khan.
3. On 13.08.1962 the Trustee (Muhammad Fazal
terminated the Trust in consequence of which the nephews
jointly inherited 180 acres apart from the Farm machinery
According to the contents of the plaint, in early March 1958,
the predecessor of the Appellant and his brothers agreed that
being a citizen of the USA, the Respondent should manage
the share of the two brothers (nephew of Kalu Khan) in the
property of Kalu Khan (deceased) inherited by them from Kalu
Khan in the United States. He would perform the said duties
without any salary. It was averred in the plaint that; in return
it was agreed that the Appellant would manage the properties
of the deceased in Pakistan. In order to implement this
arrangement, a power of attorney was duly executed. The
record indicates that the Appellants revoked their power of
attorney on 03.11.1973 and appointed Nasim-ur-Rehman as
their attorney. They also demanded their past share in the
income of the property. It was alleged in the plaint that a sum
of US $ 88,599 was recoverable from the Respondent(s). The
suit filed by the Appellants was decreed by the Civil Court of
Ciui! Appeal No. 997 of 2010 
3
Sahiwal vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2003. The
Respondent(s) appealed the said judgment and decree. This
appeal was allowed through the impugned judgment dated
15.09.20 10 by the Lahore High Court. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellants submits
that the High Court erred in law in overturning the judgment
of the Trial Court which was based upon valid reasons. He
states that all relevant issues had properly been decided in
accordance with law. He further submits that the findings
recorded by the High Court in relation to the question of
limitation as well as jurisdiction of the Civil Courts are
patently erroneous. It is further argued that the findings of
the High Court to the effect that the claim of the Appellants
was barred by time was neither supported by the record nor
by the law. He finally maintains that the suit in question
sought a decree in personam. Admittedly, although
permanent residents of the United States, the Respondents
occasionally visited Sahiwal as mentioned in the plaint. As
such, the Civil Courts of Sahiwal had jurisdiction on their
person and could have passed an executable decree against
them.
5.
Respondent No.2 has already been proceeded
against ex parte. No one has entered appearance on behalf of
Respondent No. 1.
6.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants and gone through the record.
Civil Appeal No. 997 of 2010. 
4
7. It is clear and obvious to us from a plain reading
of the plaint and Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") that the Civil Courts of Pakistan had
no jurisdiction in the matter in light of the averments made in
para 20 (i), (ii) & (iii) as well as paragraphs 22 and 23 read
with the prayer made in the plaint. For ease of reference,
Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC are reproduced as
under: -
"16. Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed
by any law, suits; (a) for the recovery of immovable property-
with or without rent or profits; (b) for the partition of
Immovable property; (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption In
the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable
property, (d) for the determination of any other right to or
Interest in immovable property; (e) for compensation for
wrong to immovable property, (9 for the recovery of movable
property actually under distraint or attachment; shall be
instituted inthe Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the property is situated, or, in the case of suits
referred to in clause (c), at the place where the cause of
action his wholly or partly arisen: - Provided that a suit to
obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to,
immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant
may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained
through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situate or, in the case of suits referred to in clause
(c), at the place where the cause of action has wholly or
partly arisen) or in the Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Explanation. - In this section 'property" means property
situate in Pakistan.
"20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be
in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction. (a) the
defendant-, or each of the defendants where there are more
Ihan one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants,
where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides,
or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided
that in such case either of the Court is given, or the
defendants who reside, or carry on business, or personally
work as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the
cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Explanation I. -
Where a person has- a one place and also a temporary
residence shall be deemed to reside at both places in action
arising at the place where he residence." (Underlining is
ours)
Civil Appeal No.997 of 2010. 
5
It is clear and obvious from the record that the subject
matter of the suit was situated in USA. This is fact admitted
in the plaint of the Appellants that the property in respect of
which the suit for rendition of accounts and recovery was
filed,, is situated in the County of Glenn, California. Section
16 of the CPC clearly stipulates that all suits in respect of
immovable property shall be filed in the Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the property in question is
situated. The only exception to this rule is suits filed under
Section 16(c). There is nothing on the record to establish that
the suit in question was related to redemption of a mortgage
or charge regarding the property in question. We are therefore
in no manner of doubt that the even according to the
averments made in the plaint the suit of the Appellants did
not fall within the parameters of Section 10 of the CPC.
8. Section 20 of the CPC clearly provides that every
suit shall be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant or each of the defendants where
there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain. It is a fact stated by
the Appellants in Para 5(a) of the plaint that the Respondent
was permanently residing in the US. It is for this reason that
an agreement was reached between the brothers to the effect
that the Respondent would manage the property inherited by
the Appellants, situated in USA. The fact that the Respondent
was a US citizen is further admitted at Para 20(iii) of the
plaint which states that the Respohdent acquired US
Civil Appeal No, 997 of 2010. 
6
citizenship somewhere during the 1950s. It is the case of the
Appellants that the Respondent neither permanently resides
nor works for gain anywhere within the jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts of Sahiwal. However, in an attempt to create
jurisdiction it has been stated in the plaint that Civil Courts
of Pakistan have jurisdiction since the suit does not involve
any question regarding immovable property and involves
rendition of accounts and recovery of money. The argument
has been repeated by the learned ASC for the Appellants
before us. With all due respect, we find the argument to be
erroneous and misconceived. We are therefore unable to agree
with this assertion since the amount claimed is income
generated from the land in question is inextricably related to
the property inherited by the Appellants, which is situated in
USA. The language of Section 16(d) clearly provides that, for
the determination of any right or interest in respect of
immovable property, a suit must be filed in a Court within the
territorial jurisdiction of which the property situated.
9. We are therefore in no manner of doubt that even
if the averments made in the plaint are taken on their face
value the Civil Courts of Sahiwal lacked jurisdiction in the
matter. The learned High Court has therefore correctly come
to the conclusion that in light of the averments made in the
plaint read with the requirements of Sections 16 and 20 of
CPC, the Civil Courts of Sahiwal lacked personal and subject
matter jurisdiction in the matter. There is nothing on the
record which shows that the Respondent was actually and
voluntarily residing in Pakistan when the suit in question was
Civil Appeal No. 997 of 2010. 
7
filed. On the contrary, it has been admitted that the
Respondent is a permanently resides in the US and is a US
citizen and visits Pakistani Sahiwal occasionally. The
understanding with the Respondent was also in respect of the
property inherited by the Appellants, situated in the United
States. The alleged breach of the agreement was purportedly
on part of the Respondent who at all relevant times resided in
the USA. Thus, the alleged cause of action also arose in the
USA when the Appellants found out about the money which
the Appellants claim is owed to them by the Respondent.
Even otherwise, presence of a Respondent within the
territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan does not ipso facto grant
jurisdiction to Pakistani Courts on the touchstone of Sections
16 or 20 of the CPC when the property in question is situated
outside Pakistan. Reliance in this regard is placed on
Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) v. Nasreen Firdous (2016
PLD 174 Supreme Court).
10. We also find that admittedly the Appellants came
to know about the alleged income on which they lay claim, in
early 1990 during Siddique's divorce proceedings. They did
riot file such claim by way of a suit if at all was legally
possible till the 04.09.2001 before a competent forum.
Further, the High Court has correctly come to the conclusion
that the record indicates that a settlement was reached
between the parties in the US which had been filed in the US
Courts and incorporated in judicial verdicts. We also find that
the suit in question was filed on the basis of two documents 
I
which were allegedly discovered by a person namely
1
St
Chit! Appeal No. 99? of2010. 
3
Zafayullah who handed over the same to Naseem Ahmed
which constituted the basis for filing of the suit. Despite
making an effort to establish the fact that in the facts and
circumstances of the matter and the claim made in the plaint
furnished sufficient basis for conferring jurisdiction on
Pakistani Courts, The learned ASC for the Appellant has been
unable to point to any provision of law that may vest
jurisdiction of Pakistani Courts. Admittedly, there existed a
financial relationship between the three brothers which came
to an end in 1973. Thereafter, a financial settlement appears 
F
to have taken place and the relevant financial issues were
settled between the parties as is evident from Exh.D-93 which
was produced before the Trial Court and the said document
has not been denied by any of the parties. In consequence of
which, if at all, it could be raised before a Pakistani Court.
Such claim could only have been raised within the prescribed
period of limitation. It is clear and obvious from the record
that the suit has been filed at least 28 years thereafter for
which no valid reason or justification has been furnished nor
has the learned counsel for the Appellants been able to
convince us that there was any lawful basis to do so.
ii. We have carefully examined the record, gone
through the documents produced before the Trial Court as
well as the all legal and factual aspects examined by the High
Court and the reasons assigned by the High Court in support
of its conclusions. We have not found any legal, procedural or
jurisdictional defect, en-or or flaw in the impugned judgment
that
. may furnish basis or justification to overturn the 
'
-. 
.1
Appeal NO-9917 OJ  2010 
9
impugned judgment of the High Court. Further, we find
ourselves in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the
High Court and the conclusions drawn are duly supported by
the record as well as the evidence produced by the parties.
Consequentiy, we do not find an y merit in this appeal. It is
accordingly dismissed. 
H.
ISLAMABAD
14.02.2022
ZR/
,)(4APnrovea Foc\eportinc,
H
H
