Kanta Rani and Others vs Singnora Wooven Staff Pvt. Ltd.

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 20.09.2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Kanta Rani seeking recovery of Rs. 71,965.08 had been dismissed.

The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of the aforenoted amount. The factual matrix of the case is not necessary for disposing of this appeal.

This is a second appeal. It had been admitted and on 23.03.2011, the following substantial question of law was formulated:-

Whether the finding in the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2009 endorsing the finding of the trial judge thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit and further adjudicating on the merits of the claim of the parties was a perverse finding? If so, its effect?

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that both the two fact finding courts have returned a positive fact finding on issue No. 4 that the Delhi Courts did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit; nevertheless it had decided the case on its merits. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant is forceful and is borne out from the Record. Six issues had been framed. Issue No. 4 is related to territorial jurisdiction and reads as follows:-

Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit?

The trial Court after examination of documentary and oral evidence had returned a positive fact finding that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that Delhi courts did not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Nevertheless, it has proceeded to deal with the matter. The impugned judgment had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge. It held that the Delhi Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; nevertheless it had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge on merits and had dismissed the suit.

This finding is perversity and calls for an interference.

In Auto Engineering Works Vs. Bansal Trading Company and Others, the court while dealing with similar plea had noted as follows:-

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial court fell in error in not directing the return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum and the High Court also likewise fell in the same error. The terms of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC are clear and specific. After having found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, the trial court ought to have returned the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum. We, therefore, set aside the order of the trial court to the extent it refused to return the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum and direct that the plaint shall be returned to the appellant for its presentation to the proper forum. After the plaint is so presented to the court having jurisdiction, the case shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law on its own merits.

In 54 (1994) DLT 30 Janta Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab Chemi Plants Ltd., a Bench of this Court had noted that where the court has drawn a conclusion that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the only course available to him was to return the plaint and not to dismiss the suit. Relevant extract reads as follows:-

The only proper course for him, after holding that the court had no territorial jurisdiction, was to return the plaint and not to dismiss the suit of the appellant. the decree sheet could not have been prepared on the basis of the law as cited in this regard. The trial Judge has grossly erred in law in disposing of the suit of the plaintiff and passing a decree, when law did not empower him to do so.

The finding in the impugned judgment endorsing the finding of the trial Judge on the merits of the case when it had returned a positive finding that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction is a perversity. This is a fit case for remand.

Matter is accordingly remanded back to the District & Sessions Judge for 31.05.2011 at 10:30 AM to mark it to the concerned Civil Judge who shall follow the procedure as contained in Order 7 Rule 10 & Rule 10 A of the Code.

Appeal disposed of in the above terms.