( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the civil Judge, Karwar, in C. A. No. 951/1965 confirming the decree passed by the Munsiff, Karwar, in O. S. No. 31/1964. ( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal dt. 19th of November 1960 passed by the Divisional controller is invalid and for arrears of salary of Rs. 706. The case of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of certain charges framed on the 27th of july 1960, he was dismissed from the post of a Conductor, which he held, by the Divisional Controller on the 19th of November 1960. The case of the plaintiff is that he was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself and that the authority which conducted the enquiry being a biased authority there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. It has further asserted that the charges framed are not clear and intelligible. In support of the plaintiff's case, he relied upon the previous enquiries and the attempts made to punish the plaintiff. One case ended in a decree in his favour in a suit filed by him and another case ended in an order of stoppage of one increment. In this background, it was asserted that the same authority which was responsible for holding the previous enquiries was really biased. The defendant-State resisted the suit on various grounds. It denied the allegation of bias and further contended that the enquiry was made in accordance with the rules after affording adequate opportunity to the plaintiff to defend himself. There was a further specific plea taken by the defendant to the effect that the Court of Karwar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit. ( 3 ) THE suit was originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge at karwar, A preliminary issue was framed in regard to the territorial jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff and held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter the suit stood transferred to the court of the Munsiff of Karwar consequent upon the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964. The learned Munsiff after considering the evidence placed by the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree was challenged by the State in appeal. Thereafter the suit stood transferred to the court of the Munsiff of Karwar consequent upon the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964. The learned Munsiff after considering the evidence placed by the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree was challenged by the State in appeal. The plaintiff also filed his cross-objections. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objections and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the defendant-State. ( 4 ) SRI Puranik, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended that there is no adjudication at the hands of the appellate Court on the important question raised by the defendant in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. As already mentioned, the Civil Judge who was seized of the suit at the relevant time recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Munsiff who finally disposed of the same in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal as well as the cross-objections came to be filed against the said decision of the Munsiff in the Court of the Civil Judge. In these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge felt embarrassed in giving a finding as an appellate Judge in regard to the question of jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that the finding given in the suit being one given by the Civil Judge, it would not be proper for him, he being a Civil Judge sitting as an appellate Court to sit in judgment over 1he said finding. Whatever may be the reasons, the complaint of Sri puranik is that there is no adjudication at the hands of the appellate court in regard to the question of jurisdiction is justified. I, therefore heard Sri Puranik on the merits of the contention. The finding recorded by the trial Court in regard to the territorial jurisdiction was read over to me. Though it may be possible to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction, the same will not justifv this Court setting aside the decree passed by the Court below. S. 21 CPC. The finding recorded by the trial Court in regard to the territorial jurisdiction was read over to me. Though it may be possible to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction, the same will not justifv this Court setting aside the decree passed by the Court below. S. 21 CPC. provides that :"no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. "it is no doubt true that the objection as regards territorial jurisdiction was raised by the defendant at the earliest possible point of time and at any rate long before the settlement of the issues in the case. The first part of the condition mentioned in S. 21 of the CPC. is therefore, satisfied. But in order to justify the appellate Court to reverse the decree on the ground that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction, the defendant has to further establish that there has been a consequent failure of justice. I find it difficult to hold that there has been a consequent failure of justice on account of the suit having been filed and entertained in the Court of the Civil Judge at Karwar. Both the Courts have concurrently recorded findings after proper assessment of the evidence on record that the authority that conducted the enquiry was biased. There are also concurrent findings to the effect that the plaintiff was not afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself. These findings being findings of fact are not liable for interference in second appeal. ( 5 ) IT is not the case of the defendant-State that on account of the suit having been instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge at Karwar that there was any difficulty on the part of the defendant in leading adequate and proper evidence in the case and defending the suit in a satisfactory manner. It is clear from the proceedings that the defendant-State has led evidence in support of its case and defended the suit in a satisfactory manner. It is clear from the proceedings that the defendant-State has led evidence in support of its case and defended the suit in a satisfactory manner. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been a failure of justice consequent upon the suit having been instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge at Karwar. As I am not satisfied that there has been a consequent failure of justice, the decree passed by the court below cannot be reversed on the ground that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit in question. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .