Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 262 (ORI)

Jyotsnarani Padhi v. Susila Padhi

2008-03-28

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. — This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar in C.S. No.42 of 2006. 2. Petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for a declaration that they are the wife and daughter of late Subash Chandra Padhi. Said Subash Chandra Padhi died on 13.12.2005 while he was in service. Since they are legal heirs-cum-successors of Subash Chandra Padhi, they are entitled to receive all the dues i.e. salary amount, GPF, gratuity, family pension etc. In the plaint, they have specifically stated that during the lifetime of Subash Chandra Padhi, he was not pulling on well with the plaintiffs for which they were living separately. Subash Chandra Padhi was paying maintenance to them as per the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar vide Misc. Case No.101 of 1988 in a proceed¬ing under Section 125 Cr.P.C. They have further pleaded that after the death of Subash Chandra Padhi, they applied to the Tahasildar, Bhanjanagar for legal heir certificate. Since the Tahasildar, Bhanjanagar turned down the said application of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants have already re¬ceived the legal heir certificate from the Tahasildar, Boudh, they filed the suit. Plaintiffs are living at village Mandar, P.S. Bhanjanagar, Dist. Ganjam. The petitioners-defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit by filing their written statement. In the written statement, they have specifically stated that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff No.1 is not the married wife of late Subash Chandra Padhi and plaintiff No.2 is not the daughter of said Subash Chandra Padhi. Traversing the plaint averments, they have further stated that defendant No.1 is the legally married wife of late Subash Chandra Padhi and defendants Nos.2 to 4 are children born through the said wedlock. Subash Chandra Padhi was a permanent resident of Boudh and he died on 13.12.2005 at that place. They have also obtained a legal heir certificate from Tahasildar, Boudh. Thus, the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and the Court below has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Subash Chandra Padhi was a permanent resident of Boudh and he died on 13.12.2005 at that place. They have also obtained a legal heir certificate from Tahasildar, Boudh. Thus, the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and the Court below has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that the Court of Bhanjanagar lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanja¬nagar rejected the petition of the petitioners on 7.7.2007 on the ground that the Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit as per Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the petitioners have filed this civil revision challenging the findings of the learned Civil Judge on the ground that the Court below has exer¬cised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners specifi¬cally argued that as the defendants are neither residing nor carrying on any business at Bhanjanagar and no part of cause of action has arisen within the local limit of Bhanjanagar Court, the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and Subash Chandra Padhi having died at Boudh while working as a Constable there and the Tahasildar, Boudh having already issued a legal heir certificate in favour of the defendants, the cumulative effect of these factors clearly clinches the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction. He further argued that since no cause of action has arisen within the territorial juris¬diction of the Bhanjanagar Court, the plaint needs to be rejected and as the Court below has not applied its judicial mind to such fact, the order passed by it is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that since the case of the plaintiffs is coming within the purview of Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. Thus, interference with the impugned order is not warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that since the case of the plaintiffs is coming within the purview of Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. Thus, interference with the impugned order is not warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. From the rival submissions made by the parties and the fact stated above, it is clear that the plaintiffs are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdic¬tion of the Court when the Tahasildar, Bhanjanagar rejected the plaintiffs’ application to issue a legal heir certificate. Law is well settled that Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code is a general Section embracing all personal actions. At common law, actions are either personal or real. The dwelling or residence must be of a more or less permanent character. On the other hand, a person may have more than one permanent place of residence at the same. If, so, he will be deemed to ‘dwell’ in any one of the places where he is actually staying for the time being, and he may be sued in that place. A suit is always based on a cause of action. There can be no suit without a cause of action and such cause of action having accrued to the plaintiff, the jurisdiction of the Court will depend on the cause of action arising through connect¬ing factors. It is not limited to actual infringement of right sued on, but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, is necessary to be proved by the plaintiff in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. It is a media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. In legal parlance, the expression “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or a state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. It is the duty of the Court under Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Code to examine a plaint before issuing summons and to ascertain whether any cause of action has been pleaded and to determine whether the plaints should be rejected or returned. But where the plaint was admit¬ted, the suit could not be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. In the present case, since the plaintiffs are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bhanjanagar Court and a part of the cause of action has arisen, i.e. her application to issue a legal heir certificate was rejected by the Tahasildar, Bhanjanagar, she has filed the suit. Hence, the aforesaid action is clearly coming under Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdic¬tion in rejecting the defendants’ application. Since substantial justice has been done, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar in C.S. No.42 of 2006 in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Revision dismissed.