Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (6) TMI 1307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct. It is submitted further that even though the issue of territorial jurisdiction shall be tried and decided as a preliminary issue, the Sub Court posted the said petition along with the Suit for considering the said question. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said procedure adopted by the trial court is erroneous and, therefore, the same requires interference with direction to the trial court to consider and pass orders on merits in the petition treating the same as a preliminary issue. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel placed a decision reported in [AIR 1993 Kerala 210], Femina Handloom of India, Cannanore v. M/s.M.R.Verma Sons. In the said decision it was held as under: Where the defendant allege .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction of Kottayam. The relevant paragraph in the counter affidavit is as under: 4. The petitioner filed written statement in the suit in which it is admitted that the petitioner purchased the rubber from the first respondent from the factory at Kottayam and the godown at Erattupetta. The relevant portion of the written statement in paragraph 4 of the written statement is extracted hereunder: 4. ........ It is admitted that the defendants used to purchase rubber from the plaintiff on different dates from different factories at Kottayam and from the godown at Erattupetta. The defendants used to take delivery of the rubber dispatched in their favour and immediately they used it for manufacturing solid tyres........... In these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are framed in a Suit, those relating to the jurisdiction to be tried at the first hand. 10. 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, in para.4, 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. I do not think that the above explanation in the reply affid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re 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 the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Section 20(c) of the C.P.C is emphatically clear on the point that a Suit can be instituted in a place where the cause of action wholly or part arises. In the plaint, the plaintiff specifically contended in para.4 and 10 that part of the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Kottayam village wherefrom the goods were con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates