Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1622 (AP)

Mavudi Rangunaidu v. Palavalasa Venkatarao

2006-12-26

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2006
ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 12th September, 2006 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the Court of Salur Junior Civil Judge has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. With the consent of both parties, this Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.31 of 2003. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.27,720/- as a holder in due course of promissory note dated 3-4-2000 executed by the 1st defendant for Rs.18,000/- in favour of the 2nd defendant 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant transferred the suit pronote in favour of him on 26-1-2001 after receiving Rs.20,000/- and thereby he became the holder in due course of the promissory note for consideration. 6. The 1st defendant filed written statement disputing his liability under the suit pronote. He also took the plea that Saluru Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by full consideration? 2. Whether the interest claimed is excessive and penal? 3. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit? 4. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined the transferor of the promissory note namely Palavalasa Gurivinaidu (2nd defendant) as P.W.2 and two others namely Alajangi Nagabhushanarao and Pariserla Appalanaidu as P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively and marked four documents as Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the 1st defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1.No documents were marked on behalf of the 1st defendant. 9. The learned trial Court, on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties held issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and whereas issue No.3 in favour of the 1st defendant and thereby dismissed the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 9. The learned trial Court, on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties held issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and whereas issue No.3 in favour of the 1st defendant and thereby dismissed the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Court below and it is thus: "The learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is no specific recital in Ext.A-1 where the said endorsement took place. Hence, it cannot be said that the transfer endorsement Ext.A-2 took place at Makkuva village. He further contended that even for argument sake we presume that this transfer endorsement took place at Makkuva, this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Honourable High Court of A.P. reported in 2004 (5) AL T 814 = 2004 (5) ALD page 57 (5.5. V.Prasad v. Y. sureskumar and another). It is true that the recitals of Ext.A-2 endorsement does not reveal about the place of execution of the transfer endorsement. It is also true that even for argument sake we accept the contention of the plaintiff that Ext. A-2 transfer endorsement took place at Mukkuva within the jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the Judgment of our Honourable High Court cited by he learned counsel for the 1st defendant reported in 2004 (5) ALT 814 =2004(5)ALD 57, this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. As the transfer endorsement does not give any new territorial jurisdiction to file suit. In view of my above findings, I am of he view that there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant. Under the given circumstances, I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. Thus I answered his issue accordingly in favour of the defendant No.1 and against the plaintiff." Hence this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent 1st defendant. 11. Thus I answered his issue accordingly in favour of the defendant No.1 and against the plaintiff." Hence this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent 1st defendant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the trial Court having held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try suit ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court and instead dismissed the suit, thereby committed procedural irregularity which needs to be rectified by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. He further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted two suits against the same defendants and in one suit, the trial Court returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kota Sreevalli and others v. Chinni Seetharamaiah and others. 12. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent 1st defendant submits that the petitioner-plaintiff having invited the finding on the jurisdictional issue cannot be permitted to contend that the trial Court committed procedural irregularity in recording a finding on the said issue and in case the petitioner-plaintiff intends to challenge the said finding, he has to take recourse by filing an appeal as provided under Section 96 C.P.C. 13. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this revision is whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit on recording a finding that the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same? 14. The same issue fell for consideration in the decision cited supra wherein it has been held that when the Court has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the suit the course open to his to return the plaint. Indeed in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being O.S.No.158 of 2004 against the respondents therein, the trial Court returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. The trial Court instead of following the same procedure has resorted to dismiss the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In the cited decision, this Court observed as follows: .1 "When there exists a regular remedy of appeal, the High Court cannot examine the correctness of a decree, in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court instead of following the same procedure has resorted to dismiss the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In the cited decision, this Court observed as follows: .1 "When there exists a regular remedy of appeal, the High Court cannot examine the correctness of a decree, in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it needs to be noticed that the very purpose of conferring supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227, is to arm the High Court with adequate power, to ensure that the subordinate Courts do not deviate from the settled principles of law, particularly, in the matter of procedure. A clear distinction needs to be maintained as to the adjudication of the findings recorded by the Court, on the merits, on the one had, ad examination of deviations if any, by the subordinate Court, from the settled procedure, on the other hand. While the former is in the exclusive province of remedy of appeal, the latter can certainly constitute the subject matter of the revision, under Article 227. It is in this context that the present matter needs to be examined." 15. Indisputedly, the trial Court returned the plaint in other suit being O.S.No.158 of 2004 filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents therein for presentation before the proper Court. The trial Court having recorded a finding on issue No.3 with regard to the territorial jurisdiction in favour of the 1st defendant ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of the same before a proper Court. At this juncture, it is trite to refer Order VII Rule 10 of CPC which reads as under:- "10. Return of plaint:- (1) [Subject to the provisions of Rule 1 a-A, the plaint shall] at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. [Explanation:- For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.] (2) Procedure on returning plaint- On returning a plaint, the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it." 16. The above referred provision fell for consideration in Md. The above referred provision fell for consideration in Md. Aslam Khan v. Y. Bhaskara Rao wherein it has been held as follows: "In view of he provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC the dismissal of the suit by the Court below appears to be not permissible. The only course left open to the Court below when it found that the Court at Srikakulam had no jurisdiction, was to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. In view of its finding on jurisdiction, it is clear that the suit should have been prosecuted to the Court at Visakhapatnam. In such circumstances, it was proper for the Court below to have returned the plaint to be filed at Visakhapatnam. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside, the Court below is directed to return the plaint, to the plaintiff to present the same before a Court at Visakhapatnam having jurisdiction. It is needless to mention that the procedure for return of the plaint contemplated under Order VII Rule 10 shall be strictly followed by the Court below. The C RP is accordingly allowed." 17. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12-9-2006 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Salur, is hereby directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff as provided under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. for presenting the same before a proper Court on or before 5th of January, 2007. There is no order as to costs.