 |
| Recovery of amount and damages. |
⚖️ جائیداد دوسرے شہر میں ہو تو رقم کی واپسی کا دعویٰ کہاں دائر ہوگا؟ سندھ ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
2020 CLC 751 — Zaiba Kably v. Tariq Nazir Bukhari
غیر منقولہ جائیداد کی خرید و فروخت کے معاملات میں اکثر یہ سوال پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ اگر جائیداد ایک شہر میں واقع ہو لیکن فروخت کا معاہدہ، رقم کی ادائیگی اور فریقین کا تعلق کسی دوسرے شہر سے ہو تو رقم کی واپسی کا مقدمہ کس عدالت میں دائر کیا جا سکتا ہے؟ سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے
2020 CLC 751
میں اس اہم قانونی مسئلے پر وضاحت کی۔
🔹 مقدمے کا معاملہ کیا تھا؟
مدعیہ نے ایک پلاٹ کی خریداری کے سلسلے میں مدعا علیہ کو تقریباً 38 لاکھ روپے ادا کیے تھے۔ فروخت کا معاہدہ کراچی میں ہوا تھا اور رقم کی ادائیگی بھی کراچی میں کی گئی تھی۔
بعد ازاں جائیداد کی اصل جگہ اور شناخت کے حوالے سے تنازع پیدا ہوگیا اور مدعیہ نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ مطلوبہ جائیداد عملی طور پر اسے دستیاب نہیں ہوئی۔
مدعیہ نے جائیداد پر قبضہ یا اس میں اپنا حق حاصل کرنے کے بجائے اپنی ادا شدہ فروخت کی رقم واپس لینے اور ہرجانے کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
⚖️ مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے دائرۂ اختیار پر اعتراض
مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے اعتراض اٹھایا گیا کہ متعلقہ جائیداد مری، ضلع راولپنڈی میں واقع ہے، اس لیے کراچی میں مقدمہ دائر نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ غیر منقولہ جائیداد سے متعلق مقدمہ اسی علاقے کی عدالت میں ہونا چاہیے جہاں جائیداد واقع ہو۔
🔹 سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے کیا قرار دیا؟
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ موجودہ مقدمے میں مدعیہ جائیداد میں کسی حق، ملکیت یا قبضے کا دعویٰ نہیں کر رہی بلکہ صرف اپنی ادا شدہ رقم کی واپسی اور ہرجانے کا مطالبہ کر رہی ہے۔
اس لیے اس دعوے کو خود غیر منقولہ جائیداد سے متعلق حق کے دعوے کے طور پر نہیں دیکھا جا سکتا۔
💰 رقم کی واپسی کا دعویٰ جائیداد سے الگ تھا
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعیہ کا دعویٰ جائیداد سے الگ اور قابلِ تفریق تھا، کیونکہ وہ جائیداد میں کوئی حق یا مفاد حاصل کرنے کا مطالبہ نہیں کر رہی تھی۔
اس کا بنیادی مطالبہ یہ تھا کہ جو رقم اس نے فروخت کنندہ کو ادا کی تھی، وہ واپس کی جائے اور اگر قانونی طور پر ثابت ہو تو ہرجانہ بھی دیا جائے۔
📍 معاہدہ اور ادائیگی کراچی میں ہوئی
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعا علیہ کراچی کا رہائشی تھا، فروخت کا معاہدہ کراچی میں ہوا تھا اور رقم کی ادائیگی بھی کراچی میں ہوئی تھی۔
ان حالات میں صرف یہ حقیقت کہ متعلقہ جائیداد مری میں واقع تھی، کراچی کی عدالت کے دائرۂ اختیار کو ختم نہیں کرتی۔
⚖️ جائیداد کے حق اور رقم کی واپسی کے دعوے میں فرق
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر کوئی شخص غیر منقولہ جائیداد میں اپنی ملکیت، قبضہ یا کوئی قانونی حق حاصل کرنے کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کرے تو اس دعوے کی نوعیت مختلف ہوگی۔
لیکن اگر فروخت کا معاملہ مکمل نہ ہو اور خریدار جائیداد میں کوئی حق طلب کرنے کے بجائے صرف اپنی ادا شدہ رقم اور ہرجانے کی واپسی چاہے تو دعویٰ کی نوعیت مختلف ہو سکتی ہے۔
🔹 سابقہ فیصلوں کا فرق
عدالت نے ان فیصلوں کو بھی مختلف قرار دیا جن میں جائیداد کے حوالے سے ملکیت، قبضہ، ڈیکلریشن، کینسلیشن یا دیگر ریلیف کے ساتھ ہرجانے کا مطالبہ کیا گیا تھا۔
موجودہ معاملے میں مدعیہ کا مطالبہ براہِ راست جائیداد میں کسی حق کے حصول سے متعلق نہیں تھا بلکہ اس کا دعویٰ رقم کی واپسی اور ہرجانے تک محدود تھا۔
✅ عدالت کا حتمی فیصلہ
سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ موجودہ حالات میں عدالت کو مقدمہ سننے کا دائرۂ اختیار حاصل تھا۔
چنانچہ مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے دائر کردہ درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی اور مقدمہ قابلِ سماعت قرار پایا۔
📌 اہم قانونی اصول
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ غیر منقولہ جائیداد کی فروخت کا معاملہ مکمل نہ ہونے کی صورت میں اگر خریدار جائیداد میں کوئی حق یا مفاد طلب کرنے کے بجائے صرف ادا شدہ رقم کی واپسی اور ہرجانے کا مطالبہ کرے تو ایسا دعویٰ جائیداد سے الگ اور قابلِ تفریق ہو سکتا ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ خاص طور پر ان مقدمات میں اہم ہے جہاں جائیداد ایک مقام پر ہو لیکن معاہدہ، ادائیگی اور فریقین سے متعلق اہم واقعات کسی دوسرے مقام پر ہوئے ہوں۔
⚖️ حوالہ فیصلہ
Zaiba Kably v. Tariq Nazir Bukhari
2020 CLC 751 (Sindh)
Must read judgment.
2020 C I. C 751
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
ZAIBA KABLY----Plaintiff
Versus
TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI----Defendant
C.M.A. No.2422 of 2014 in Suit No.1417 of 2012, decided on 2nd April, 2019.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
Ss.19, 20 & O.VII, R.10---Suit for declaration and damages-Jurisdiction of court---Office objection---Plaintiff sought recovery of entire sale price and damages on grounds that land in question was not physically available-Office as well as defendant raised objection that High Court had no jurisdiction-Validity Claim of plaintiff was severable from subject property and plaintiff was not claiming any right or interest in subject property-Plaintiff was demanding her money/sale price back together with damages if at all she was able to prove same---Jurisdiction of High Court was not ousted as defendant was resident of Karachi, sale agreement which though was no longer enforceable was also executed at Karachi and payments were also made at Karachi---Suit was maintainable in circumstances.
Haji Riaz Ahmed Mir v. Brig. (Retd.) Ch. Muhammad Sharif PLD 2003 Kar. 45 ref.
Ghulam Fareed v. Shahid-ud-Din Tughalaq PLD 2008 Kar. 536; Muhammad Naved Islam and 3 others v. Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and 14 others 2011 CLC 1176 and Muhammad Bachal v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 12 others 2011 CLC 1450 distinguished.
Muhammad Ali Lakhani for Plaintiff.
Muhammad Vawda for Defendant.
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2019.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.-1&2. There is an office note that vide order dated 08.04.2014, maintainability issue of the suit is to be decided. In this regard, the Defendant has also filed a separate application [C.M.A. No.2422 of 2014], which is also listed. for hearing today.
In brief, the controversy revolves around recovery of sale price and damages in respect of a plot bearing No.805, measuring 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas, Muaza Sambli, Behra Mall, Daak Khana Angoori, Tehsil Muree, Zila Rawalpindi (the "Subject Property"). It appears that parties are entangled in litigation for quite some time and a criminal proceeding was also filed by the present Plaintiff against the Defendant, which was later quashed in C.P. No. D-4458 of 2012 and maintained up to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Lakhani, Advocate, while representing the Plaintiff has argued that even though, admittedly, a Sale Agreement in respect of the Subject Property was executed in Karachi, but but same could not be materialized because Subject Property does not exist and since there is a confusion about its physical location, therefore, Plaintiff was interested to complete transaction. and demanded the entire payment of Rs.3.8 Million (approx.) back from the Defendant and has filed the present proceeding for damages; therefore, in terms of Section 19 of the C.P.C. suit can be filed on the Original Side in this Court as admittedly the Defendant is resident of Karachi, secondly, the Agreement in question dated 03.06.2008 in respect of the Subject Property was executed in Karachi which is Annexure-'A' to the plaint. Earlier, the litigation was also filed against the Defendant in Karachi and on the instructions of the Honourable Supreme Court when a joint survey was conducted by the concerned Revenue Authorities at Muree, a confusion arose ahout physical location of the of the Subject Properry. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has referred to the order dated 02.05.2014, available at page-7 (of second part of Court file) passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in which specific directions were given to the officials for handing over the possession of Subject Property to the Plaintiff. He then referred and read relevant portion of the Report dated 03.06.2014 of Tehsildar, Muree, which contains following observations
"Subsequently, in reference to his transfer 912, another Transfer No.913 on oral declaration of Khawait No.129, Qitaat # 229, total measuring 60/135386 of 6769-6, area measuring 2 Kanal-10 Marlas was transferred against 10,000/- by Tariq Nazeer Bukhari son of Syed Nazeer Ahmed Bukhari, House No.42/F-1, Block-6, PECHS. The and District Karachi (Seller) to Zaiba Kably Wife of Merat Viscardh resident of 45/2, Mohallah Commercial Street Phase-4, D.H.A. Karachi and The and Distt. Karachi, (Purchaser) on 30.08.2008. Photo copy of transfer attached. From perusal of record it is clear that the land in Shamalat Deh Hisis Jadi and the transfer rights therein have been transferred. Thereafter, I asked both the parties about location of land whereupon Tariq Nazeer Bukhari son of Syed Nazeer Bukhari [Second party] said that for the purposes of possession, I had shown the land to Zaiba Kably from Khasra No.289/1063-3 and this is the 063-3 and this is the same land which was shown to me by Rana Ajmal, the representative of Rana Naeem, at the time when I purchased eland, I am showing you the same spot. At the spot, there was a stones. However, the first party [Zaiba Kablyl refused to take possession of the said land on the ground that previously, I was shown some other land which is not this land. Copies of transfer and Fard of parties are attached.
At the spot, a sale agreement was shown to me in which the plot was referred to as Plot No.805, however, reference quoted as 805 is transfer number and not plot number which was transferred from Muhammad Zubair son of Karamdad to Mastajir Khan son of Sher Dad Khan. 805 is not the plot number. Copy of transfer is attached.
Therefore report is submitted on 3/6/2014 for necessary instruction/order."
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has cited the case law reported in PLD 2003 Karachi page-45 [Haji Riaz Ahmed Mir v. Brig. (Retd.) Ch. Muhammad Sharif) to supplement his arguments. He concluded his arguments by requesting that the listed application of Defendant be dismissed.
Arguments are obviously controverted by Mr. Muhammad Vawda, Advocate, appearing for the Defendant. He has argued that there was no confusion about the physical location of the Subject Property and the Defendant was ever ready and willing to hand over the possession of the same but Plaintiff was reluctant to complete the transaction. Learned counsel further submitted by referring paragraph-8 of the plaint as well as the cause of of action, that the entire exercise with regard to the Subject Property was taken at İslamabad and Rawalpindi and since the Subject Property, admittedly, situated in Tehsil Muree, therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction. He has referred to the portion of the order passed in above constitutional petition by the learned Division Bench of this Court, in which the proceedings were quashed against the Defendant and it was held that the case of cheating and dishonest intention is not made out, which order was maintained up to the Honourable Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Learned counsel has further relied upon Section 16 of the C.P.C. to emphasize that the proceeding of the nature should have been filed before. the competent Court and not this Court. He placed his reliance on the following case law.
i. PLD 2008 Karachi page-536,
[Ghulam Fareed v. Shahid-ud-Din Tughalaql
ii. 2011 CL C page-1176
Muhammad Naved Islam and 3 others v. Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and 14 others]
iii. 2011 CLC page-1450
[Muhammad Bachal v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 12 others]
Arguments heard, record perused.
The crux of the case law cited by the Defendant's learned counsel is that even if the damages are sought for the wrong done to a party in respect of the transaction of immoveable property then the proper forum to decide the dispute is where the property in dispute situate. Secondly, Section 120 of C.P.C. excluding the applicability of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. vis-à-vis Original Jurisdiction of this Court, shall not apply where the property in dispute is situated outside Karachi. Thirdly, provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the Court should decide firstly about its its juris jurisdiction. The exhaustive decision of learned Division Bench, handed down in the case of Naved Aslam (Supra), in which, the order of learned Single Bench to return the plaint, was maintained, is based on the facts, that the appellant (of the reported case) filed a suit seeking declaration in respect of an immovable property situated at Jamshoro, together with a relief of mandatory injunction, cancellation and damages; hence, the claim of damages. was directly linked and forms an integral part of other reliefs pertaining to an immovable property; whereas, in the reported decision relied upon by the Plaintiff's side, it is held, that this Court has jurisdiction when party is claiming merely recovery of his amount paid tsumede nf immotashla pronaste which done not matavinlion
Arguments heard, record perused.
The crux of the case law cited by the Defendant's learned counsel is that even if the damages are sought for the wrong done to a party in respect of the transaction of immoveable property then the proper forum to decide the dispute is where the property in dispute situate. Secondly, Section 120 of C.P.C. excluding the applicability of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. vis-à-vis Original Jurisdiction of this Court, shall not apply where the property in dispute is situated outside Karachi. Thirdly, provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the Court should decide firstly about its jurisdiction. The exhaustive decision of learned Division Bench, handed down in the case of Naved Aslam (Supra), in which, the order of learned Single Bench to return the plaint, was maintained, is based on the facts, that the appellant (of the reported case) filed a suit seeking declaration in respect of an immovable property situated at Jamshoro, together with a relief of mandatory injunction, cancellation and damages; hence, the claim of damages was directly linked and forms an integral part of other reliefs pertaining to an immovable property; whereas, in the reported decision relied upon by the Plaintiff's side, it is held, that this Court has jurisdiction when party is claiming merely recovery of his amount paid. towards a sale transaction of immoveable property, which does not materialize and consequently, the objection to the jurisdiction was repelled, although the property (of the reported case) was situated in Gujranwala.
Ex facie, undisputed factual aspect at present is that the Assistant Commissioner, Muree, has submitted a Report dated 30.06.2014 before the Honourable Supreme Court, in which it is mentioned that the Plaintiff does not have any possession at site; secondly, conclusion of the Report is, that at site dispute arose between present Plaintiff and Defendant with regard to the physical location of the Subject Property.
Through the present lis the Plaintiff is seeking return/recovery of entire sale price which admittedly was paid to the Defendant as is also observed in the decision of learned Division Bench of this Court in the above constitutional petition and additionally the amount towards damages. Prayer clause of the plaint makes things clear that the present suit is not in respect of the subject property, but only for return of the of the amount of sale price and damages; which means that the sale transaction between the parties had ended long time back. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Defendant are thus distinguishable on the ground, inter alia, that in all those cases the damages and compensation for wrong done to the property has had a direct nexus, rather integrated with the entitlement sought about the property(ies) (involved in those cases); in other words, the parties claiming such relief were also claiming their rights and interest in the property, but in the present case, the wrongful acts allegedly committed by the Defendant are separable from the immoveable property itself. Hence, the claim of Plaintiff in the present lis is severable from the subject property and admittedly the present Plaintiff is not claiming any right or interest in the subject property, rather demanding her money sale price back together with damages, if at all she is able to prove the same. In fact the Defendant admittedly is a resident of Karachi, Sale Agreement, which though no longer enforceable, was also executed at Karachi and the payments were also made at Karachi, thus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted, in these circumstances. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and accordingly application [C.M.A. No.2422 of 2014] is dismissed.
case. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove are only tentative in nature and will not influence the final outcome of this
- Deferred. Adjourned to a date in office. MH/Z-22/Sindh
Application dismissed.