Ragni And Others. vs Mayur Agrawal

Heard the matter finally with the consent of the parties.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Third Additional Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class I, Itarsi in case No.06/2016 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

In brief the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.12 Lacs along with interest against the defendants/ petitioners in which transaction is said to have taken place at Harda, District Harda however, the suit has been filed at Itarsi, District Hoshangabad.

The contention of the defendants/ petitioners is that the pleadings themselves reveal that only a notice seeking repayment of the aforesaid amount has been sent from Itarsi and no cause of action has taken place at Itarsi. Thus, on this ground, application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint for want of territorial jusdiction.

The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the trial Court holding that the part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Itarsi as the reply to the plaintiff's notice was also sent by the defendant to Itarsi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the learned Judge of the trial Court is based on erroneous reasoning while holding that the notice was issued by the plaintiff from Itarsi and its reply was also sent by the defendant to Itarsi only, which as submitted by the counsel, cannot confer the territorial jurisdiction to court at Itarsi.

Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in (1989)2 SCC 163. He has also placed reliance on the case of Firm Sitaram Shyamsunder of Janjgir Vs. Ganpatlal Shrawan and another, reported in 1973 M.P.L.J. 551.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in coming to a conclusion that the cause of action has arisen at Itarsi. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhas Chandra Gupta Vs. Gyanchand and others, reported in 1994 JLJ 262.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

So far as the undisputed facts are concerned, in para 12 of the plaint which refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, it is stated that since reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was given by them on 25.02.2016 within the jurisdiction of Itarsi Court, hence the Court at Itarsi has the jurisdiction to try the suit. So far as the legal position is concerned, it would be apt to refer to the judgment rendered by the

In the case of Firm Sitaram Shyamsunder of Janjgir (Supra), the Division Bench has held as under:-

"2. When the present case went before a learned Single Judge of this Court, he referred the matter to a larger Bench to decide whether the case of State v. Prem Narayan Gupta (supra) has been rightly decided. In subsequent cases, the Calcutta High Court itself has taken a contrary view laying down that a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code is no part of the cause of action, but the cause of action is always antecedent to such a notice. That was what was laid down by A.N. Ray, J. in Jaharlal Pagalia v. Union of India. This view of A. N. Ray, J. (as he then was) finds support from the view as expressed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union of India, where Mukharji, J. and Bose J. in their separate judgments expressed the opinion unequivocally that a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code not being a part of the cause of action, the place wherefrom the notice is issued would not confer jurisdiction on the Court of that place. The same thing, in our opinion, can be said about the place where the notice is served. Thus, where a statutory notice is required to be issued on the Government, the mere fact that the notice is issued from a particular place or is sent to some other place will not confer jurisdiction on the Courts of those places. But the question of jurisdiction will have to be decided on other considerations. To that extent we are certainly in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union of India (Supra). We may observe that a single Bench of the Patna High Court in Union of India vs. Kedar Prasad followed the Division Bench view of the Calcutta High Court and expressed the opinion that the view as expressed in the earlier case of Raj Kumar Shaw v. Dominion of India (Supra) and the case of Pratap Chandra Biswas v. Union of India (Supra) stood impliedly over ruled on account of the subsequent pronouncement of the Calcutta High Court in the said Division Bench case of Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union ofIndia (Supra)."

In the present case, notice was issued from Itarsi only on 11.02.2015 which was replied to by the defendant on 25.02.2016. Thus, testing the aforesaid facts on the anvil of law laid down by this Court, way back in the year 1973, this Court has no hesitation to hold that merely service of notice or its reply from or to a particular place would not confer any territorial jurisdiction regarding the transaction. So far as the judgment Subhas Chandra Gupta (Supra) cited by the respondents is concerned, para 12 of the same refers to the issue that in a civil revision filed under Order 115 of C.P.C., although it is only the statements of plaint which have to be considered but the documents filed with the plaint can also be looked into and the reply filed by the defendant and the documents filed therein cannot be looked into. The said judgement is of no use to the respondent and is distinguishable on facts.

As a result, the petition stands allowed, and the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC is also hereby allowed. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby rejected, however, with the liberty to prefer the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

C.C. As per rules.