Tamil Nadu Cements Ltd. vs Balakrishnan and another

This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 4.2.2000 made in I.A.No.1176 of 1999 in O.S.No.366 of 1999

by the Court of District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coining to be filed, it comes to be known that the petitioner herein viz., Tamil Nadu

Cements Limited, Alanguiam, which is the first defendant in the suit filed by the respondents herein, has filed a petition in I.A.No.1176 of 1999

before the lower Court under Order 14, Rule 2(a) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. thereby challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court in

entertaining the suit on ground that the suit properly locates outside the jurisdiction of he trial court i.e. at Sivakasi and therefore the right place to

file the suit is either the court of District Munsif or the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi depending upon the pecuniary jurisdiction but not the

court of District Munsif, Virudhurtagar as the plaintiffs have chosen to file their suit in the case in hand. On such allegations, the petitioner herein has

prayed the lower Court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction for the court of District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

The Lower Court to settle this issue raised a preliminary issue by the first defendant in the suit, prior to settling the other issues on merit and in

accordance with law, since being a legal one has rightly conducted a full enquiry into the allegations of the petition, in which no oral evidence seems

to have been adduced on either side but two documents would be marked on the part of the petitioner as Exs.A.1 and A.2 Ex.A.1 dated

27.8.1999 and Ex.A.2 dated 13.11.1998 being the Moving Permits granted for removing the Minerals from the site. No documents were also

marked or. behalf of the respondents.

In consideration of these documents placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both further tracing the pleadings by parties and

having its own discussions, the trial court has ultimately arrived at the conclusion to dismiss the application. It is only testifying the validity of such an

order passed by the court below, the first defendant in the suit has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds as

brought forth in the grounds of revision petition.

The pertinent point for decision is whether in the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and pertaining to the reliefs sought for, the court of

District Munsif, Virudhunagar is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

Section 16 of the CPC is the provision of law directly concerned with the point wherein it is specified that the suits ought to be instituted where

the subject matter situates, subject only to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law and the suits falling under categories 16(a) to (0

shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property situates. If the case falls under any one of the circumstances

specified under the proviso to Section 16, C.P.C. the suit could be instituted either in the court within whose local limits or jurisdiction the property

is situate or in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or

personally works for gain.

Now, the duty of the court in the case in hand is to find out whether the suit of the nature as one in hand would fall under any one of the

categories mentioned in Section 16(a) or (f) of C.P.C., in which event the suit could be filed only in the court within the local limits of whose

jurisdiction the property situates that is at Sivakasi or would the same falls under the proviso to Section 16 under which either it could be filed in

the court at Sivakasi or at Virudhunagar and whether the plaintiff is right in choosing Virudhimagar in preference to Sivakasi since according to him

it is Virudhunagar where the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. In the case in hand, the plaintiffs have

chosen the place that is mentioned in the proviso to section 16 discarding the court within whose jurisdiction (he suit property situates.

The suit is for the reliefs of (i) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3 to prevent the first defendant from quarrying against the

Rules anew; (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from quarrying contrary to the Rules of the Government and (iii) for a

permanent injunction restraining the second and third defendants from granting the permit in favour of the first defendant from quarrying against the

Government Rules anew and for costs.

It is pertinent to note that the suit schedule property is the land in S.No.54 of Alangulam Village, Sivakasi Taluk in Virudhunagar District. The

plaint averments would reveal that the suit property is the adjacent property on the Northern side of the lands of the plaintiffs falling under

S.No.53/1 extending 56 cents; that apprehending that in the event the first defendant is granted with the licence to quarry in the suit schedule lands

against the rules of the Government, the plaintiffs would be subjected to inconvenience and hardship; they have come forward to file the suit,

seeking the reliefs extracted supra.

From the above revelations it is quite evident that all the reliefs have been sought for only pertaining to the suit property falling in S.No.54 of

Alangulam Village of Sivakasi Taluk in Virudhunagar District. The said property being the immovable property and being the subject mailer of the

suit the same having been located within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif s Court, Sivakasi, the suit since falling under the category of Section

16(d) of the C.P.C., should have been instituted either before the court of District Munsif, Sivakasi or before the court of Subordinate Judge,

Sivakasi depending upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of these courts and not elsewhere. The question of drifting to the proviso to Section 16, C.P.C

would arise only in exclusion of the choices given u/s 16(a) or (f) of C.P.C. and while the suit falls u/s 16(d) the question of shifting away from the

section or exercising the option given under proviso does not arise at all.

But the lower court, under miserable misconception of law, has wrongly justified the filing of the suit before it under the false impression that it

is a case questioning only the obedience and not the location of the suit property and thus concluding that the suit would fall under the provision of

section 16, C.P.C. The lower court without consideration of the suit property offered by the plaintiffs themselves pertaining to which alone the

reliefs have been sought for, has gone into assessing the unnecessary details which are irrelevant for consideration as a result of which it is hereby

concluded that the lower court has landed at the wrong conclusions. Hence the interference of this Court sought for to be made into the fair and

decretal order passed by the lower court is just and proper and quite justified. The order passed by the lower court since being erroneous

becomes liable to be set aside. The point is answered accordingly.

In result,

(1) The above Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the same is allowed.

(ii) The fair and decretal order dated 4.2.2000 made in I.A.No.1176 of 1999 in O.S-No.366 of 1999 by the court of District Munsif,

Virudhunagar is set aside.

(iii) The petition filed by the petitioner herein before the lower court in I.A.No.1176 of 1999 in O.S.No.366 of 1999 is allowed.

(iv) In compliance of the request of the learned counsel for the respondents that they may be permitted to institute the same suit before the proper

forum i.e. either the court of District Munsif or the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi depending upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit, it is

ordered that the time that is consumed from the date of institution of the suit in O.S.No.366 of 1999 before the Court of District Munsif,

Virudhunagar till this day shall not stand in the way of limitation.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 16629 of 2000 is closed.