Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1473 (RAJ)

Sethi Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

2013-08-27

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 1 (a) of CPC challenging the order dated 24.11.99 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 164/88, whereby the plaint has been ordered to be returned by the trial court for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of CPC. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent-defendant seeking recovery of Rs. 1,00,140/- towards the damages for the alleged breach of contract. It was alleged in the suit interalia that the tender filed by the appellant-plaintiff was accepted by the Superintending Engineer of the respondent-defendant at Kota and the letter of acceptance was also delivered by the plaintiff at Kota and, therefore, the contract was entered into between the parties at Kota. It was also alleged that thereafter the defendants had committed the breach of the contract and hence the suit was filed. The respondent-defendant had filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and had also raised the contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the court at Kota. The trial court, from the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 11 issues, out of which issue No. 10 pertained to the question of jurisdiction. 3. It appears that the trial court thereafter had recorded the evidence led by the parties. When the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the defendant had filed an application for deciding the issue No. 10 as a preliminary issue. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties held that the court at Kota did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and the court at Baran had the jurisdiction. The trial court therefore returned the plaint of the plaintiff for the presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction, vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. The trial court therefore returned the plaint of the plaintiff for the presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction, vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for the appellant that the trial court had committed an error in deciding the issue No. 10 as preliminary issue, when the suit was at the stage of final arguments and when the respondent-defendant had also submitted the written arguments on all the issues. He has submitted that even otherwise the finding of the trial court as regards the jurisdiction is erroneous inasmuch as the cause of action had also arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Kota. 5. However, the learned Government Counsel Mr. Hari Barath for the respondent has submitted that the question of jurisdiction being pure question of law, and from the evidence of the parties also it appeared that the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Baran, where the work was to be executed and, therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order, as well as the record of the case, it transpires that the trial court has returned the plaint for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction, at the stage when both the parties had led the evidence on all the issues and when the matter was fixed for final arguments. It is needless to say that the question of jurisdiction has to be raised by the defendant at the earliest stage in the suit. Even the preliminary issue has to be decided by the trial court before the settlement of the other issues, as per Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of CPC. Hence, it was not proper on the part of the trial court to decide the issue No. 10 as preliminary issue at the fague end of the suit, when the suit was fixed for final arguments. Hence, it was not proper on the part of the trial court to decide the issue No. 10 as preliminary issue at the fague end of the suit, when the suit was fixed for final arguments. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion as to whether the trial court has the jurisdiction, it is required to be directed that the trial court shall pronounce the judgment on all the issues including the issue of jurisdiction considering the evidence on record. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The trial court is directed to decide all the issues including the issue of jurisdiction on the basis of evidence on the record at the earliest. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******