Under writ petition, the High Court rejected the plea that framing of a preliminary issue on trial court's territorial jurisdiction was erroneous.
The writ petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011
***
1.Based upon clause 14 in an agreement the
trial Court has framed preliminary issue to
find out whether it has territorial
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
dispute. Learned counsel Mr. Bajpai has
urged that said clause 14 is not relevant
insofaraspetitioner/plaintiffis
concerned. It is further urged that in any
case because of the status of defendants as
pleaded, for adjudication of that issue the
evidence on merits is required to be recorded
and looking to the quantum of that evidence
or its nature it will be in the fitness of
things to adjudicate all issues together so
as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. She
also wants to cite certain judgments to
demonstrate that course of action adopted by
trial Court in this situation is not proper.
2.It is apparent that at this stage
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
correctness or otherwise of the contentions
of rival parties is not relevant. The trial
Court has looked into the relevant clause and
thereafter has found it necessary to frame
preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. It
is obvious that as and when trial Court
undertakes adjudication of that issue the
petitioner/plaintiffasalsoother
defendants will get opportunity to advance
their rival contentions.
3.I do not see any jurisdictional error or
perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs.
[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:11/03/2011.
ans/1509
1 issue framed by the court
Whether framing of a preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction by the trial court constitutes a jurisdictional error or perversity warranting quashing of that judgment in a writ petition.
petitioner/plaintiff
defendants
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court