2022 (6) TMI 1307 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - jurisdiction to entertain the Suit since no cause of action for the Suit arose within the jurisdiction of Kottayam district - HELD THAT - Where the defendant alleged that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case and an issue is framed regarding jurisdiction, for the convenience of the parties same should have been tried as preliminary issue and if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction the plaintiff can very well proceed the litigation in the proper court. The finding regarding jurisdiction at the final stage would only cause undue hardship to the parties and also that when issue of law and facts are framed in a Suit, those relating to the jurisdiction to be tried at the first hand. Here, the Suit was instituted in the year 2013. When the written statement was filed as on 03.09.2013, the defendants categorically and wilfully admitted that part of the transaction was within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the circumstances led to the above contention in the written statement has been explained and later it was revealed that the plaintiff does not have any factories or godowns in other place in Kottayam district except in Erattupetta. The procedure adopted by the learned Munsiff to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction during the final stage of trial cannot be justified and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside - matter has to be remitted back to the trial court for deciding the question of jurisdiction afresh, as a preliminary issue of law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to the order in I.A.No.2/2020 regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order in I.A.No.2/2020, contending that the Sub Court, Kottayam, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as no cause of action arose within Kottayam district. The petitioner argued that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should have been tried as a preliminary issue, citing legal precedents for support. The petitioner emphasized that the trial court's procedure was erroneous and requested the court to consider and pass orders on the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary matter.

2. The respondent argued that the petitioner's challenge to territorial jurisdiction lacked bona fides. The respondent pointed out that the defendants had previously filed a written statement admitting that part of the transaction leading to the Suit occurred within Kottayam's jurisdiction. Citing Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent contended that the Suit was rightly instituted in Sub Court, Kottayam, and the jurisdictional issue was not valid. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that since part of the transaction was within Kottayam's jurisdiction, the Sub Court had the necessary jurisdiction.

3. The court held that when a defendant challenges the court's jurisdiction, it should be tried as a preliminary issue for the convenience of the parties. The court noted that the defendants had wilfully admitted in their written statement that part of the transaction occurred within the Sub Court's jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner's explanation in the reply affidavit for retracting the admission unconvincing, especially given the belated stage of the application. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to address the jurisdiction issue at the final stage was unjustified and set aside the order.

4. Considering the age of the case and the need for expedited resolution, the court decided to address the jurisdiction issue itself in the interest of justice. Referring to Section 20 of the CPC, the court emphasized that a Suit can be instituted where the cause of action arises. Given the admission in the written statement, the court found that the Sub Court, Kottayam, had territorial jurisdiction over the Suit. The court directed the Sub Judge to expedite the case's disposal on merits within three months.

5. The Original Petition challenging the jurisdiction issue was disposed of accordingly, with the court upholding the Sub Court's jurisdiction in the matter and directing expedited case resolution.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the challenge to the Sub Court's territorial jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of trying jurisdictional issues as preliminary matters for party convenience. The court upheld the Sub Court's jurisdiction based on admissions in the written statement and directed expedited case resolution on merits.