Dismissed

Daya Nidhi Singh v. Sri Krishna Mahto And Ors.

Jharkhand HC24 Oct 2018WPC/5560/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, aggrieved by rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contended that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact decidable during trial and no law bars the suit on a bare reading of the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, no interim or final relief granted in the writ proceeding.

Daya Nidhi Singh Vs Sri Krishna Mahto And… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5560 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Daya Nidhi Singh, son of late Satyadeo Singh, Project Director, M/s E.C.I. Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Camp Office, Amra Talab, Karwandia, in front of Hill View Fuels, Sasaram, PO-Sasaram, PS-Sasaram, District-Rohtas(Bihar)-831 115

¶5

…. Defendant No.4/ Petitioner

¶6

--Versus--

¶7

1.Sri Krishna Mahto, son of Tribeni Mehta, resident of Village Dadighghar, PO-Ichak, PS-Ichak, District-Hazaribagh

¶8

….. Plaintiff/ Respondent 2.E.C.I. Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Plot No. A-12-13, Panchvati Township, Manikanda, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.District, Dyderabad-500 089, Head Office Plot No.70, Anshu Colours, 3^rd Floor, Road No.1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, PO-Jubilee Hills, PS-Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh)

¶9

…. Defendant No.1/ Respondent

¶10

3.Civitech Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vinay Complex, Civil Lines, Kalisthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, PO-Sasaram, PS-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar) 821 115

¶11

…. Defendant No.2/Proforma Respondent 4.Civitech Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kanchan Kunjn, Saket Nagar, Sasaram, PO-Sasaram, PS-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar)

¶12

…. Defendant No.3/ Proforma Respondent

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶14

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi, Advocate For the Respondent : ------

¶15

5/ 24.10.2018 The petitioner, who is defendant no.4 in Money Suit No.01 of 2011, is aggrieved of order dated 16.06.2017 by which his application under Order-VII Rule 11(d) CPC has been rejected.

¶16

2 . Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and while so, the trial Judge should have rejected the plaint under Order-VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶17

3 . The defendant no.4 is the Director of the defendant no.2-Company-Civitech Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Managing Director of Defendant No.3-Civitech Construction Pvt. Ltd. He has filed this application after issues were settled in the suit; one of the issues is maintainability of the suit on the question of jurisdiction of the court. It is well-settled that a question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of

¶18

¶19

law and fact and it can be decided only during the trial, except in cases where on a bare reading of the plaint averments it is found that the court has no territorial jurisdiction. After the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 by which Order-XIV Rule 2 CPC has been amended, it is no longer mandatory for the court to decide a preliminary issue and it is rather discretion of the court which in the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by the parties, the court may exercise. It is also well-settled that under Order-VII Rule 11 CPC the plaint can be rejected only if from the statement made in the plaint it appears that the suit is barred by any law. On a reading of the plaint averments, the trial Judge has rightly observed that at this stage it cannot be said that the suit is barred by any law.

¶20

4 . In the aforesaid facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶21

( Shree Chandrashekhar, J. )

¶22

SI/,

Daya Nidhi Singh v. Sri Krishna Mahto And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Nidhi Singh v. Sri Krishna Mahto And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nirawati Devi And Anr. Vs Smt Chudawati Devi And Ors.

Khudi Ram Mahato Vs Mukesh Sharma And Anr.

Sajani Devi Vs Smt Chhobia Mahatain And Ors.

Ganeshi Singh And Ors. Vs Mahabir Singh And Ors.

Baidhnath Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented by the Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Captain Deep Srivastava Vs Ms Tata Steel Limited