Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1124 (PNJ)

Bakshi Ram Tiwari v. Punjab and Sind Bank

2000-09-15

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 30.4.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur, who rejected the objection of the defendant by deciding issue No. 1 framed on 4.11.1997 that the civil court at Hoshiarpur had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Punjab and Sind Bank filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8650 executed by defendant No. 2- Anil Sharma in favour of defendant No. 8-Bakshi Ram Tiwari, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8653 executed by deceased D.P. Sharma, predecessor in interest of defendants No. 5 to 7; namely, Amrit Sharma, Ravi Kumar Sharma and Pawan Kumar Sharma, in favour of defendant no. 8 aforesaid, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8648 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 8, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document no. 8649 executed by defendant No. 6, in favour of defendant No. 8, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8652 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 8 and sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8651 executed by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendant No. 8, all the sale deeds pertaining to Kothi No. 113, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, are illegal, void, inoperative and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff-Bank, who is creditor of the partners of M/s Woodland Paper Board Mills and Packages, and these sale deeds have been executed with the intention to delay and defeat the rights of the creditor-Bank and are liable to be set aside under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Bank has a lien to effect the recovery from the said property through execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 283/81/88 of 8.10.1988 decided on 6.4.1990 by the court of Shri H.P. Handa, the then Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur. 3. The suit was filed at Hoshiarpur. The defendant appeared and filled written statement taking a preliminary objection that the civil court at Hoshiarpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the civil courts at Jalandhar had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. The suit was filed at Hoshiarpur. The defendant appeared and filled written statement taking a preliminary objection that the civil court at Hoshiarpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the civil courts at Jalandhar had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This version was contested by the bank, and a preliminary issue to the following effect was framed :- "Whether the civil courts at Hoshiarpur has jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPP" 4. The parties addressed arguments on this preliminary issue and for the reasons given in para-4 of the impugned order dated 30.4.1999, which is reproduced herein below, this issue was decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff :- "I have considered the submissions addressed by both the counsel for the parties. The provisions of section 16 of CPC is quite clear, wherein a relief can be obtained where the defendant resides, but in the present case, the decree was passed against Woodland Paper Board Mills through defendants No. 1 to 7, by Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, and defendant firm is situated and works for gain in village Dhaha. Even the execution proceedings were also pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur. The undertaking not to sell the Kothi in question was also given at Hoshiarpur, thus the plaintiff bank has a part of cause of action to file the present suit, at Hoshiarpur, as the validity of the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 8 can also be determined through personal appearance of defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff bank has claimed relief in respect of the property and not in the property itself. A part of cause of action has also arisen at Hoshiarpur, in favour of the plaintiff-bank, therefore, the civil court at Hoshiarpur has jurisdiction to try the present suit. Therefore, preliminary issue No. 1 framed on 4.4.97 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present revision by the defendant- petitioner. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. Therefore, preliminary issue No. 1 framed on 4.4.97 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present revision by the defendant- petitioner. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 16 CPC, and submits that the nature of the suit filed by the bank was for the determination of its right and interest in the immovable property and, in these circumstances, the civil court at Hoshiarpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 8. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent submitted that the case of the Bank falls within the provisions of Section 20 CPC. According to him, a part of cause of action had arisen to the bank at Hoshiarpur in view of the undertaking given by the vendors in the previous suit, which was disposed of by the civil court at Hoshiarpur. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that through the present suit, the bank is not asking for determination of any of its rights in the immovable property. 9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. What is a cause of action has not been defined in the C.P.C. What I understand by this term Cause of Action is a bundle of facts on which the plaintiff wants to rely to get a decree from the civil court. The challenge in this case has been given to various sale deeds executed by different defendants in favour of defendant No. 8, with respect of the immovable property which is, admittedly, located at Jalandhar. The plaintiff-Bank for filing the civil suit at Hoshiarpur, is making the undertaking which was given by the vendors at Hoshiarpur. The bank in the present case is asking for adjudication of the right which was allegedly created in its favour under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act with respect to Kothi No. 113, which was situated at New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar. The bank in the present case is asking for adjudication of the right which was allegedly created in its favour under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act with respect to Kothi No. 113, which was situated at New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court, the provisions of section 16(d) ; i.e. that the suit in relation to immovable property for the determination of any other right or interest in immovable property is to be filed where such immovable property is located, are fully attracted. The cause of action, in fact, arose to the plaintiff-Bank with the execution of the sale deeds in respect of the property situated at Jalandhar. As the immovable property was situated at Jalandhar, this aspect of the case has not been rightly appreciated by the court below. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and directions are given to the civil court at Hoshiarpur to return the plaint to the Bank for being filed at Jalandhar. A certificate of transfer shall also be issued by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. No costs. 11. Nothing stated above shall amount to expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. Order accordingly.