Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1151 (PNJ)

Monica Electronics Limited v. R. V. A. Associates

2003-08-14

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - Monica Electronics Limited, the petitioner-Company was defendant No. 4 before the trial Court. 2. The petitioner-firm is aggrieved against the order dated February 19, 2001 passed by learned trial Court. Vide the aforesaid impugned order an application filed by the defendant-applicants under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") has been dismissed. 3. A suit for rendition of accounts was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The defendants appeared. The defendant-applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with section 151 of the Code. It was claimed that there was an agreement for appointment of C & F Agent dated October 1, 1996 executed between the plaintiff and the applicants at Delhi and as per Clause 22 of the agreement, the Courts at Delhi alone would have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of any matter arising from or relating to the aforesaid agreement. This application was contested by the plaintiff-company. It was claimed that the aforesaid agreement had been executed by the plaintiff at Karnal. A further reliance was placed on a letter dated December 13, 1996 addressed by the authorised signatory on behalf of the Onida Company to the plaintiff-firm showing that the said agreement was executed at Karnal. 4. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the material placed before it came to the conclusion that as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaint had been properly filed at Karnal and the question as to whether the court at Karnal would or would not have jurisdiction cannot be decided without leading evidence. It was held that the said controversy was a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the plaint was not liable to be rejected or returned as claimed by the defendant-applicant. The defendant-applicant has now approached this court challenging the aforesaid impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 6. I do not find that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any illegality or infirmity. The defendant-applicant has now approached this court challenging the aforesaid impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 6. I do not find that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any illegality or infirmity. In fact the learned trial Court seems to have come to a right conclusion that the territorial jurisdiction of a court was a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the same could not be decided in the absence of any evidence. Nothing has been pointed out that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any error of jurisdiction. 7. At this stage, it may also be relevant to notice the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code. As per the aforesaid provisions where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit then it may try an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of a court or a bar to the suit created by any law as a preliminary issue irrespective of the fact that whether any evidence was required or not. 8. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the observations made by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order are absolutely legal and justified. It would be open to the applicant-defendant to file an appropriate application for claiming the aforesaid issue of territorial jurisdiction to be a preliminary issue. The learned trial Court shall of course, decide the said issue as a preliminary issue if and when any such application is made by the defendant-applicant in this regard. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.