Harjinder Pal Singh vs The Regional Passport Officer

L.N. Mittal, J.—By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Harjinder Pal Singh has assailed judgment dated 24.9.2010 Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 25.2.2011 Annexure P/2 passed by the lower appellate court. Plaintiff petitioner filed suit against defendant-respondent Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar seeking mandatory injunction for correction of date and place of birth of the plaintiff in the passport issued by the defendant. Defendant was proceeded against ex-parte in the trial court.

Learned trial court vide ex-parte judgment dated 24.9.2010 Annexure P/1 and consequent decree sheet dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. In first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, learned lower appellate court vide impugned judgment Annexure P/2 held that the court at Amritsar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the plaint has been ordered to be returned to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petitioner to challenge judgments of both the courts below.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of this Court in M/s. Punjab Alloys (P) Ltd., Chandigarh versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 662 contended that objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the trial court has to be taken at the earliest possible stage failing which the objection will not be entertained at appellate stage unless grave prejudice is shown. It was thus argued that in the instant case, objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the court at Amritsar was not raised by the defendant in the trial court and therefore, no such objection could be raised at the appellate stage.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that since court at Amritsar lacked territorial jurisdiction, lower appellate court has rightly ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Even according to ratio of law laid down in the case of M/s. Punjab Alloys (P) Ltd. (supra), there is no absolute bar to raising of objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the court at appellate stage. Moreover, in the instant case, on bare reading of the plaint itself, it becomes clear that court at Amritsar has no jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently even in the absence of any objection by defendant, the appellate court could order return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court at Amritsar. In this regard, para no. 8 of the plaint relating to territorial jurisdiction of the court at Amritsar as pleaded by the plaintiff-petitioner has been reproduced in impugned judgment Annexure P/2 of the lower appellate court and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

That the plaintiff is residing at Amritsar, therefore, this Hon''ble Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

According to section 20 of the CPC (in short, CPC), place of residence of the plaintiff does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the court of that place. Consequently, plea of the plaintiff that since he was residing at Amritsar, therefore, the court at Amritsar has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, cannot be accepted. On the contrary, court of the place where the defendant resides or where cause of action whole or in part has arisen has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of section 20 CPC. In the instant case, office of the defendant is located at Jalandhar and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Amritsar. There is also no plea by the plaintiff in the plaint that any part of the cause of action arose at Amritsar. On the other hand, the passport was applied at Jalandhar and was issued at Jalandhar. Consequently, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of court at Amritsar. Consequently, judgment in the case of M/s. Punjab Alloys (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

It is, thus, apparent from the plaint itself that court at Amritsar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, finding of the lower appellate court to this effect does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.