2019 (3) TMI 2019 - SC - Indian Laws

Civil suit against the respondents for a declaration damages and for grant of injunction etc. in the High Court at Calcutta - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Since in this case the respondents did not file any written statement and instead raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction by filing the application for revocation of leave the High Court should not have entertained the said application and instead should have granted liberty to the respondents(defendants) to file the written statement in the suit and to raise therein a plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact. It is for this reason the respondents(defendants) should be allowed to raise such plea in the written statement to enable the Court to try it on its merits in accordance with law in the light of the requirements of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and other relevant provisions governing the issue on merits. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of leave to file a civil suit based on territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the High Court at Calcutta's judgment revoking the leave granted to the plaintiff to file a civil suit due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant filed a civil suit seeking declaration, damages, and injunction against the respondents. The respondents challenged the leave granted, arguing that the cause of action did not arise within the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction. The Single Judge revoked the leave, which was upheld by the Division Bench, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in revoking the leave granted to the appellant. The Court heard arguments from both parties' counsels and examined the case records. After thorough consideration, the Supreme Court decided to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remand the case to the Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court referred to past legal precedents, including the case of Secretary of State vs. Golabrai Paliram, to establish the correct approach for dealing with jurisdictional issues. It emphasized that a plea of territorial jurisdiction should be raised in the written statement as a substantive part of the defense rather than through an application for revocation of leave. In this case, since the respondents did not file a written statement and directly challenged jurisdiction, the Court held that the High Court should have allowed them to file a written statement to raise the jurisdictional plea.

The Court highlighted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination in accordance with procedural laws. It emphasized that the respondents should be given the opportunity to raise the jurisdictional plea in the written statement to enable a proper trial on the merits. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the arguments and legal citations presented by the respondents, concluded that the decisions cited were not applicable in this context based on the established legal principles.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directed the respondents to file a written statement raising the jurisdictional plea, and instructed the Single Judge to frame appropriate issues and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that its decision to remand the case did not imply any opinion on the merits of the dispute, emphasizing that the Single Judge should decide the issue strictly based on the law and without influence from previous observations.