Petitioner sought leave to withdraw a revision petition challenging territorial jurisdiction orders. The court held the lower civil order was appealable, making the revision in maintainable, and also dismissed as withdrawn.
Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.
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.
C. R. No. 6223 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 6223 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 18, 2012
M/s Sham Singh Thakur .... Petitioner Vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 26444-C-II of 2012 :
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case :
Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks permission to withdraw the instant revision petition.
Trial court at Patiala ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiffpetitioner for want of territorial jurisdiction, vide order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure P-1). Thereupon, plaintiff filed application (Annexure P-4) under Order 7 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) in
C. R. No. 6223 of 2012 (O&M)
2
the trial court for presenting plaint in Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. Accordingly, the trial court, vide order dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure P-2), has directed the parties to appear before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar on 30.10.2012.
Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 of the trial court.
In view of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, order Annexure P-1 is appealable, and therefore, revision to challenge the same is not maintainable. Under Order 7 Rule 10-A (5) CPC, where application has been made under sub-rule (2) of the said Rule, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Consequently, order Annexure P-1 is also not appealable in view of application Annexure P-4 moved by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC. Petitioner cannot challenge order Annexure P-2 because by the said order, application Annexure P-4, moved by the petitioner, has been allowed by the trial court in terms of Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
October 18, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition assailing the trial court's order returning the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction is maintainable.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to appeal against the order returning the plaint once an application under Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC is filed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Sham Singh Thakur
Ravinder Kumar Jain
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
