1994 (10) TMI 332 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Amravati Court.
2. Applicability of Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. Agreement between parties regarding exclusive jurisdiction of Hyderabad courts.
4. Decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Amravati Court:
The primary issue in the case was whether the Court at Amravati had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trial court initially held that it did not have jurisdiction based on Clause 29 of the Hire Purchase Agreement, which specified that all legal proceedings should be prosecuted in Hyderabad courts. This decision was challenged by the plaintiff before the District Judge, Amravati, who held that the issue of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law and should not have been decided as a preliminary issue without deciding other issues on merits.

2. Applicability of Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code:
The defendant filed an application under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code, which is specific to Maharashtra and allows the court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue if an objection to the court's jurisdiction is raised during the hearing of an application for interim relief. The trial court, with the plaintiff's consent, decided to treat the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue. The appellate court, however, overlooked the provisions of Section 9-A and erroneously applied Order 14, Rule 2, CPC, which generally does not allow mixed questions of fact and law to be decided as preliminary issues.

3. Agreement Between Parties Regarding Exclusive Jurisdiction of Hyderabad Courts:
The Hire Purchase Agreements dated 6-6-1981 and 7-4-1981 included Clause 29, which provided that all legal proceedings relevant to the subject matter of the agreements should be prosecuted in Hyderabad courts. The trial court found this clause binding and concluded that the parties had chosen the forum for resolving disputes, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Amravati courts. The appellate court failed to consider this binding agreement and the plaintiff's initial consent to decide the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue.

4. Decision on the Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction:
The trial court, after recording evidence and hearing arguments, concluded that the Amravati court lacked jurisdiction and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court in Hyderabad. The District Judge, Amravati, set aside this order, stating that the issue of jurisdiction involved mixed questions of fact and law and should not have been decided as a preliminary issue. The High Court, however, found that the appellate court ignored the provisions of Section 9-A, CPC, and the plaintiff's consent to treat the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue. The High Court quashed the appellate court's order and directed it to decide the appeal afresh, giving topmost priority to its disposal.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the appellate court erred in its approach by not considering the provisions of Section 9-A, CPC, and the plaintiff's consent to decide the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue. The High Court set aside the appellate court's order and directed a fresh decision on the appeal, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal.