The State and Others vs Sri Banwari Lal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This appeal, preferred u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.1980, passed by the first Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur, in Suit No. 119 of 1972.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff / respondent instituted suit for recovery of Rs. 20,650/-, and also sought injunction restraining the defendants from realising Rs. 9,070/- from the plaintiff. It is pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff / respondent that he was purchaser of Katha trees in an auction sale at Dehradun, in respect of lot No. 109, Badkot Range (District Uttarkashi). Said auction took place on 21.11.1960, for a consideration of Rs. 23,300/- An amount of Rs. 11,650/- was deposited by the plaintiff with defendant No. 1, as the rest of the amount was to be deposited after approval of the auction by the Conservator of Forests, within fifteen days. The approval was not received within fifteen days. The plaintiff had to suffer losses on account of money spent on labourers who had to go back without work. Later, the plaintiff was informed on 04.01.1961, that he will be allowed to cut the trees, and plaintiff deposited Rs. 6,000/- with defendant No. 1. On 15.03.1961, the Divisional Forest Officer passed orders that the matter would be enquired into as to the illegal felling of the trees. After enquiry, a report was lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant authorities in the criminal court, but the plaintiff was acquitted of the charges in September 1962. However, the plaintiff was not allowed to fell the trees as per the contract. It is further pleaded in the plaint that even after acquittal from the criminal court, the defendants have issued warrant for realisation of Rs. 9,070/- on account of alleged illegal felling. Hence, the suit for recovery of loss suffered by the plaintiff, and for injunction against the defendants, not to recover amount of Rs. 9,070/-.

The defendants (present appellants) contested the suit and filed their written statements before the trial court. They admitted that plaintiff was auction purchaser and did deposit Rs. 11,650/- in 1960. However, as to the rest of the allegations the same are denied by the answering defendants, except the fact that the plaintiff was acquitted by the criminal court. It is pleaded that the defendants are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff for the loss suffered. It is further pleaded that amount of Rs. 9,070/- was rightly imposed as fine by the Divisional Forest Officer under Clause 8A of the agreement deed executed between the parties.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, framed following issues:

Whether, the defendants had agreed to secure the approval of Conservator of Forests, within 15 days of auction?

Whether, the plaintiff was detected trying to fell and export trees by use of forged hammer marks on 11.03.1961, and was the department justified in stopping him from felling the trees?

Whether, the plaintiff was rightly fined for his aforesaid act under the terms of the agreement?

Whether, the plaintiff had to spent a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards labour charges due to fault on the part of the defendants?

Whether, the plaintiff resumed work on 17.02.1961, after his request for cancellation of the contract in his favour, was rejected?

Whether, the plaintiff was liable to pay to the department full contract money of Rs. 23,300/-, and also fine of Rs. 3,420/- imposed upon him?

Whether, the plaintiff served a valid notice on the defendants u/s 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Whether, the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

Whether, the defendants 2 to 5 are not juristic person and the suit is bad for their misjoinder?

To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court decided issues No. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 was decided in negative. Issue No. 5 was decided in affirmative. Issue No. 6 was decided partly affirmative. Issue No. 7 was decided in affirmative. Issue No. 8 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 9 was decided with the observation that suit cannot be dismissed on account of misjoinder of the defendants. With these findings the suit was decreed by the trial court for recovery of Rs. 17,650/- with proportionate costs. The trial court further decreed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from realising Rs. 9,070/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 13.03.1980, passed by the I Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur, in Suit No. 119 of 1972, this appeal is filed by the defendants before the Allahabad High Court on 28.06.1980, where it was admitted on 11.08.1980. The appeal is received by transfer to this Court u/s 35 of the U.P. Re- organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. After the appeal is received by this Court, notices were issued to the parties, but no one turned up on behalf of the plaintiff / respondent.

Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants and after going through the record, this Court does not find any error of law or error in appreciation of evidence in respect of findings arrived in all the issues, except issue No. 8. The issue No. 8 relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Saharanpur. The record shows that the suit was instituted at Saharanpur. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the trees of lot No. 109 stood in Badkot Range of district Uttarkashi, and auction took place in district Dehradun. It is further contended that merely for the reason that plaintiff had his residential address of Saharanpur, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the court at Saharanpur to try the suit. The trial court decided issue No. 8 in favour of the plaintiff only on the ground that the refund was required to be made by the defendants at the residential address of plaintiff. But said observation is not based either on any term of agreement or under any provision of law. That being so, in the opinion of this Court, no part of cause of action arose within the district of Saharanpur and it cannot be said that the court at Saharanpur had any jurisdiction to try the suit. the defendants had raised the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court at the first instance of litigation by filing the written statement and raised the issue. The trial court at Saharanpur has committed error of law by holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The cause of action has accrued infact in Dehradun where the auction had taken place and part of the cause of action did lie in the district of Uttarkashi where the trees stood, and were to be fell. Since, no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Saharanpur, the trial court at Saharanpur has committed error of law by decreeing the suit and holding that part of cause of action is within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding on issue No. 8 is reversed.

For the reasons as discussed above, since the I Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur, had no territorial jurisdiction in respect of matter, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, passed by the trial court, is set aside. Defendants shall be entitled to refund of the deposits, if any, made in the trial court by them.