Dismissed

N.B. Hasamani, v. N.Venugopal Reddy

Telangana HC26 Dec 2011CRP/5713/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of a belated preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that raising the issue after trial commencement causes delay and denied Article 227 intervention, directing expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose the suit expeditiously within three months.

N.B. Hasamani, Vs N.Venugopal Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.5713 of 2011

¶3

Date:2 6 th December, 2011

¶4

Between: N.B.Hasamani S/o.Nigam Gowda ..... Petitioner AND

¶5

N.Venugopal Reddy S/o.Obul Reddy & Ors. .....Respondents

¶6

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶8

Civil Revision Petition No.5713 of 2011

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.34 of 2010 in O.S.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/1^st defendant under Order 14, Rule 1 r/w.Sec.151 CPC to decide the preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction.

¶11

2. The petitioner is the 1^st defendant and whereas, the 1^st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The other respondents are defendants 2 to 4 in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.12,62,000/- with

¶12

interest at 12% p.a. The 1^st defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The 1^st defendant pleaded in the written statement that the suit at Kadapa is not maintainable as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Kadapa. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the written statement, which reads as hereunder:

¶13

“…It is submitted that the plaintiff deliberately created the agreement dated 15-7-97 and remaining correspondence only to file this unjust suit. It is submitted that as per clause 29(e) of the agreement, dated 26-2-97 any dispute between this defendant and the department has to be settled at court situate at Sindagi, Karnataka State only. This defendant without prejudice to his case submits that any dispute in respect of the entrusted work has to be settled at the court situate at Sindagi only and not at Kadapa and hence this Hon’ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This defendant submits that late N.Ravindra Babu Reddy, had very cleverly taken the letterheads of this defendant for works sake and kept them with him. It is submitted that the plaintiff taking advantage of blank letterheads available with him which were stealthily kept by his brother, concocted the agreement dated 15-7-97 and other correspondence. Even the alleged agreement is unstamped and not enforceable in law and it cannot be looked into. … ……”

¶14

The trial Court settled the issues including the territorial jurisdiction aspect. The plaintiff commenced the evidence and examined one witness. The 1^st defendant cross-examined the witness in part. When the case stood posted for further cross-examination of PW.1, the 1^st defendant filed I.A.No.34 of 2010 under Order 14, Rule 1 r/w.Sec.151 CPC to decide the preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the petition. It is stated in the counter that the trial has been commenced and the defendant took adjournment for completing the cross-examination of PW.1 and therefore, the application to try the territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue is liable to be dismissed. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the 1^st defendant did not raise any objection when the trial has commenced and he has even crossexamined PW.1 to some extent. For better appreciation, I may refer

¶15

the relevant portion of the order, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, which reads as hereunder:

¶16

“Since the 1^st defendant did not raise objection at earliest point of time by filing application and submitted himself, by cross-examining PW.1 to some extent. The petitioner cannot raise such objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction at the belated stage stalling the trial of the suit. In these circumstances there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner to raise objection with regard to the jurisdiction having cross-examined the PW.1 to some extent. There are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.”

¶17

Hence, this revision.

¶18

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court situated at Kadapa and therefore, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed for inherent lack of jurisdiction. A further submission has been made that when the Court at Kadapa has no territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner/1^st defendant cannot be compelled to take the ordinal of bringing all the witnesses from Bijapur of Karnataka State. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bank of India, CBD Belapur Branch, Navi Mumbai v. U.A.N.Raju & Anr .^[1] .

¶20

5. It is a matter of record that the suit is of the year 2006. The petitioner/1^st defendant filed written statement in March, 2007. Trial has been commenced. The petitioner/1^st defendant cross-examined PW.1 on commission in part. Such is the stage of the proceedings, I am of the view that taking up of the territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue makes the further proceedings delayed. The suit has been pending for the last more than 5 years. Since the trial has already been commenced, there is no need of the issue on territorial jurisdiction to be taken up as a preliminary issue. In that view of the

¶21

matter, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As the suit is of the year 2006, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The trial Court has to consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

¶22

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶23

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶24

Date:26^th December, 2011.

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶27

Civil Revision Petition No.5713 of 2011

¶28