Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 66 (MP)

Ramchandra Yadav v. Bhagirath

2001-01-18

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2001
Short Note Applicant-Defendant has directed this revision against the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by IVth Civil Judge Class II Ujjain in Civil Suit No.23A/2000 thereby decline to record findings with regard to jurisdiction on the application filed on behalf of the applicant under O.7 R.10 and 11 CPC read with section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Plaintiff-non-applicant has filed a suit against the applicant for declaration and injunction with regard to the property in dispute. The non-applicant plaintiff has also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant under O.39 R.1 and 2 CPC. During the pendency of the said application the present applicant has filed application under O.7 R.10 and 11 CPC challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court for hearing of the suit as filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid application refused to decide the question of jurisdiction and held that the question of jurisdiction of the Court shall be decided on the basis of the evidence recorded in the suit at the subsequent stage. The trial Court also filled the pending suit for hearing arguments on the application filed by the plaintiff under O39 R.1 and 2 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court the applicant has filed this revision. The only contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that as the Court has to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the non-applicant-plaintiff, the question of deciding Courts jurisdiction cannot be deferred because the Court is competent to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff only when it has prima facie Jurisdiction to try such suit. The learned counsel submitted that the order impugned being illegal deserves to be set-aside and the trial Court be directed to decide the matter of Jurisdiction of the Court prima-facie before deciding the application for temporary injunction filed by the non-applicant. Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. v. State Bank of India and others ( 1995 JLJ 609 ). Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. v. State Bank of India and others ( 1995 JLJ 609 ). Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case of Vindhya Telelinks (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that “Before granting injunction, the Court is required to consider the existence of a prima facie case which would also imply prima facie consideration of the jurisdiction of that Court. There would not be a prima facie case, if the Court considering has apparently no jurisdiction to entertain the suit”. In view of the facts of the case as also the law applicable, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has committed an error in not deciding prima facie the question of jurisdiction before considering the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff. Consequently, the order impugned of the trial Court is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction to consider the application filed on behalf of the applicant under O.7 R.10 and 11 of CPC alongwith the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant-plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction under O.39 R.1, 2 CPC and while deciding the said application should prima-facie record its finding that the Court has jurisdiction or has no jurisdiction to try the suit as filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the said two applications at the earliest possible. The revision petition stands finally disposed of in terms of the directions indicated above. No orders as to costs.