Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 289 (CHH)

SHAKUR ANSARI v. BANSHILAL MUNDRA

2009-11-04

N.K.AGARWAL

body2009
ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18-10-2005 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Baster, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in civil suit No. 1-B/2004, whereby and where under issue No.4 has been decided in favour of the defendant/respondent and the plaint has been returned to be presented before the jurisdictional court of Dantewada. 3. The undisputed facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Both the parties are permanent resident of Jagdalpur, the respondent awarded a construction work to construct first floor of his lodge to the, plaintiff7appellant herein. 4. As per plaintiff, he constructed the same but the remuneration/contract amount has not been paid to him by the respondent, therefore, he instituted a suit for its recovery before the trial Court. On an objection taken by the respondent, one issue as issue No.4 has been framed which reads as under: 5. This issue was heard as preliminary issue and after hearing both the parties, the trial court recorded a finding that the suit is triable by jurisdictional court of Dantewada and returned the plaint. 6. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial court has erred in recording its finding that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jagdalpur, and submitted that the ratio of Supreme Court decision passed in case of M/s Hanil Era Textile Ltd. Vs. M/s Purumatic Filters (P) Ltd.1, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as admittedly there is no contract between the parties to the effect that in case of dispute the same will be settled within the territorial jurisdiction of Dantewada court. In the present case, the parties are permanent resident of Jagdalpur, part of cause of action also arose in the jurisdiction of Jagdalpur court therefore, certainly Jagdalpur court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. Per contra, Shri RN Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the order and submit that the order passed by the District Judge, Jagdalpur is well reasoned order and deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 9. Admittedly, both the parties are permanent resident of Jagdalpur. 7. Per contra, Shri RN Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the order and submit that the order passed by the District Judge, Jagdalpur is well reasoned order and deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 9. Admittedly, both the parties are permanent resident of Jagdalpur. As per Section 19 of CPC, where a suit is for conpensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Court. 10. In view of this, it Cannot be said that Jagdalpur court has no jurisdiction to try the instant suit. Section 16 applies only in case of disputes relating to immovable property. Admittedly, there is no agreement to settle the dispute within the territorial jurisdiction of Dante wad a Court in the instant case. 11. In view of above, as the parties reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Jagdalpur, the trial court has committed error in returning the plaint. 12. In the result, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed. No order asto costs. Appeal Allowed.