In a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a jurisdiction objection in an Original Suit, the Kerala High Court held that fixing territorial jurisdiction solely on the defendant's office location is impermissible.
Revision petition dismissed without costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/24TH PHALGUNA, 1938
CRP.No. 314 of 2016 (E)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 185/2014 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 08-03-2016
REVISION PETITIONERS/DECLARANTS :-
BY ADVS.SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
SMT.JENCY MICHEAL
/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -
M/S. GLOBAL FIRE SAFETY, 36/385(14), VEE PEE COMPLEX, MALAMPUZHA ROAD, OLAVACODE-678002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHAILENDRA BHOOSHAN.
BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
C.R.P. No. 314 of 2016
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2017
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 08.03.2016 in I.A.No.3256 of 2014 in O.S.No.185 of 2014 of the Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The above said application in I.A.No.3256 of 2014 was filed by the defendants disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the subject matter involved in the suit. It is submitted in the said application that the office of the defendants is functioning within the jurisdiction of Munsiff Court, Ottappalam, and the place wherein the work was done is also situated within the jurisdiction of the said court. But, the suit was filed before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad and as such the defendants disputed the territorial jurisdiction in entertaining a suit of this nature by the Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The lower court, on hearing both the parties, dismissed the application finding that it has got territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the defendants/petitioners.
petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent remained absent.
C.R.P. No. 314 of 2016
2
jurisdiction, has to be, at first, decided on the place wherein the transaction took place or, if any, agreement or contract entered and the place wherein such contract was entered. In the application filed by the defendants, nothing was mentioned or whispered with respect to the place wherein the agreement was entered. It is also not whispered anywhere in the application with respect to the place wherein the parties have agreed to conduct the contractual work and signed on the contract. All these are conspicuously absent in the petition submitted by the defendants. It is not at all permissible to fix the territorial jurisdiction simply on the reason that the office of the defendants is functioning within the jurisdiction of some other court. Going by the order of the lower court, this court could not find any reason sufficient to exercise revisional power and as such the revision deserves only dismissal and I do so, but without costs.
P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision against the lower court's dismissal of the defendant's jurisdiction challenge deserves to be allowed.
Whether the defendants' reliance on their office location alone is sufficient to assign territorial jurisdiction.
JAWAHARLAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, JAWAHAR COLLEGE OF AVIATION, NEHRU COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST
M/S. GLOBAL FIRE SAFETY
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
