M/s. Rama General and Electrical Store vs The Chief Engineer, Air Force (WAC) and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed u/s 115 of the CPC (in short, CPC), judgment and decree dated 22.05.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala are under challenge. The petitioner as contractor executed work of external electrification of technical building of Air Force at Halwara, District Jalandhar, Punjab. Dispute between the parties relating to said contract was referred to respondent No. 3-Arbitrator, who gave award dated 30.06.1993. Petitioner-contractor filed petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the ''Act'') for making the award as rule of the Court.

Respondents No. 1 and 2/objectors appeared and filed objections against the award. It was alleged that petition filed by the contractor is barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that Court at Ambala Cantt. Had no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the contractor because the contract was executed at Bathinda and the work was executed at Halwara and payment was also made at Halwara whereas the Arbitrator held the arbitration proceedings at Chandigarh and nothing happened at Ambala Cantt. On merits also, the award was assailed.

The contractor in his reply repudiated the averments of the objectors.

Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2001 dismissed the objections filed by respondents I and 2 and allowed the petition filed by the contractor and made the award rule of the court and passed decree accordingly for recovery of the awarded amount along with interest thereon @ 10% per annum from the date of award till recovery. However, appeal against the said judgment and decree, preferred by the objectors, has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2002 holding that the Court at Ambala did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the contractor and accordingly judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, contractor has filed this revision petition.

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

The only question adjudicated by the lower appellate Court is relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala. Consequently, only the said question arises for adjudication in this revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner contractor relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma and Others Vs. Kuntalan Kutty Dead by Lrs. and Others, contended that there has not been failure of justice by trial of the contractor''s petition by the Court at Ambala and consequently contractor''s petition could not be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala. It was also pointed out that issue No. 2 relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court was not even pressed in the trial Court.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents reiterated that the contract was executed at Bathinda and the work was executed at Halwara and payment was also made at Halwara and arbitration proceedings were held at Chandigarh and consequently Court at Ambala had no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the contractor.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The respondents at the earliest opportunity in the trial Court raised objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala in their objections filed in the trial Court. The said objections were filed before framing of issues in the case. Consequently, respondents suffered miscarriage of justice by trial of the contractor''s petition at Ambala although the Court there had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said petition. Conditions mentioned in judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma (supra) are fully satisfied by the respondents.

As regards plea that the objection was not pressed in the trial Court, the same has been rightly repelled by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court has observed under issue No. 2 that there is no evidence on the file to suggest that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the award for making it rule of the Court and then went on to observe that even otherwise, this issue was not proposed by counsel for the objectors during the course of arguments. However, the appellate Court has observed in paragraph 9 of its judgment that counsel for the objectors contended that the objectors were duly disputing the jurisdiction of the Court and the petition by the contractor could not have been filed at Ambala. Even otherwise, objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala, has been taken at the earliest opportunity by the respondents in their objections filed in the trial Court. Consequently, it cannot be said that issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, was not pressed in the trial Court.

Now coming to the question whether the Court at Ambala had territorial jurisdiction to try the petition or not.

Objection No. 2 raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 in their objection petition is reproduced hereunder:

That the Hon''ble court has no Jurisdiction to entertain the award for making rule of court as the contract with respect to the award was executed between the parties at Bathinda. Work under the contract was executed at Halwara and the payment was made at Halwara. Arbitrator held the arbitration proceedings at Chandigarh. So nothing is done in regard to execution and completion of contract at Ambala Cantt.

Corresponding reply on behalf of the contractor is reproduced hereunder:

That para No. 2 of the objection is wrong and denied. This Honourable court has territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

It is thus manifest that the factual position, pleaded by the respondents regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of Court at Ambala Cantt., was not controverted by the contractor in its reply. The objectors asserted that the contract was executed at Bathinda; work was executed at Halwara and payment was also made at Halwara; the Arbitrator held the proceedings at Chandigarh. All these facts were not specifically denied by the contractor in its reply and are deemed to have been admitted. Even otherwise, there is finding by the lower appellate Court that work was executed at Halwara, which is in fact the contractor''s own case. Payment was also made at Halwara and arbitration proceedings were held at Chandigarh. Consequently, no part of cause of action arose at Ambala. Perusal of petition, filed by the contractor, reveals that it was pleaded by the contractor that it received the award with forwarding letter at Ambala Cantt. and therefore, Court at Ambala has jurisdiction to try the petition. However, because the contractor was stationed at Ambala Cantt., the award had to be sent to it by the Arbitrator at its address of Ambala Cantt., but on this ground alone, Court at Ambala did not get territorial jurisdiction to try the petition because no part of cause of action arose at Ambala Cantt Receipt of award by the contractor from the Arbitrator cannot be said to be part of cause of action. On the contrary, cause of action arose from the execution of the contract at Bathinda, execution of the work at Halwara, payment made at Halwara and Arbitration proceedings held at Chandigarh. Thus no part of cause of action arose at Ambala Cantt and therefore, the Court at Ambala had no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the contractor. Resultantly finding of the lower appellate Court to this effect, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor the same is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. In fact, in view of almost admitted factual position, Court at Ambala had no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition. Finding of the lower appellate Court in this regard, therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.