Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 213 (UTT)

SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA v. BHUSHAN STEEL & STRIPS LTD.

2015-04-16

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The present petitioners/plaintiffs before this Court had filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant/respondent. Evidently, the petitioners had supplied limestone to the defendant. It is an admitted fact that limestone is taken out by the petitioners from its factory at Dehradun, Uttarakhand and supplied to the respondent at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendant regarding the jurisdiction of the suit itself, as according to the defendant, no cause of action, leave aside part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court at Dehradun. The principal contention of the defendant on this issue is that as per the plaint itself, the plaintiffs have stated that they had supplied the material from Dehradun which was off-loaded at Sahibabad, and it was the discretion of the defendant to have rejected the material at Sahibabad. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, arose at Sahibabad alone. 3. The trial court accepted the contention of the defendant and came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that any cause of action arose at Dehradun as in his own admission goods have been off-loaded at Sahibabad, and therefore, on the point of territorial jurisdiction the complaint was written under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. Consequently the plaintiffs filed a miscellaneous appeal, which was also dismissed on the same ground. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Thind, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 5. In view of this Court both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court had fallen into a patent error. “Cause of action” by now has required a judicially settled meaning. “Cause of action” means a bundle of fact; “bundle of fact” would mean not all facts only but only such facts which are relevant for the lis between the parties. Neither the trial court nor the lower appellate court has applied its mind to this important aspect. Definitely if the goods have been supplied, and admittedly there is no written agreement between the parties, but it appears that the goods were supplied from Dehradun, according to the plaintiffs they have always received the amount for such delivery of goods. Neither the trial court nor the lower appellate court has applied its mind to this important aspect. Definitely if the goods have been supplied, and admittedly there is no written agreement between the parties, but it appears that the goods were supplied from Dehradun, according to the plaintiffs they have always received the amount for such delivery of goods. The oral agreement itself was made at Dehradun and they have been receiving continuously the payment of different consignments of limestone at regular intervals at the hands of the defendant regarding which they have produced bills before this Court. None of the courts have appreciated this point i.e. either by the trial court or by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 20 (c) of C.P.C., which is a relevant provision in the present case, which reads as under:- “20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – (a) …… (b) …… (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 6. It is clear from a bare reading of Section 20 (c) of C.P.C. that inter alia cause of action would arise and jurisdiction will be given to the court if cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in the territorial jurisdiction of that court. Therefore, both the orders dated 31.08.2009 and 13.12.2011 are wrong and are hereby set aside, as the courts below have not considered at all what part of cause of action arises in Dehradun or not. 7. The writ petition is disposed with a direction and the matter is remanded to the trial court for redetermination on this cause of action. Let both the parties shall file all evidences stating that cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. Let the evidence be re-appreciated by the court concerned in accordance with law. In case trial court comes to the conclusion that it has a jurisdiction in the light of Section 20 of C.P.C., it shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.