Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... vs Sat Parkash Amar Singh on 17 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR45
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Garhshankar, dated 30th of September, 1991, whereby application under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the defendant-petitioners for treating issue No. 5 relating to Jurisdiction as preliminary issue, was, dismissed.
2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are, that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for grant of permanent in- junction restraining the defendants from removing any installation such as outfits and the under ground storage tanks etc. from the petrol pump located at Nawanshahar Road in Garhshankar, and, for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue and restore the regular supply of petroleum products to the plaintiffs for sale to their consumers/customers from the said petrol pump. In the said suit preliminary objection was raised by the defendants in their written statement that the Courts at Garhshankar had no jurisdiction to try the present suit and that according to clause 18 of the agreement executed between the parties on 27th of April, 1989, any dispute arising out of the agreement shall be adjudicated by the competent courts at Chandigarh. Otherwise also, the courts at Chandigarh had jurisdiction as part of cause of action had accrued there. The learned trial Court however did not treat the said issue as preliminary issue, as according to the trial court mixed questions of law -and facts were involved.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the defendant-petitioners it was mainly submitted that the question of jurisdiction is pure question of law and ought to have been treated and decided as a preliminary issue by the learned trial Court After coming into force the Code of Civil Procedure amended Act, 1976, as a general rule the Courts notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, shall pronounce judgment on all the issues and one of the exceptions relates to the jurisdiction of the court when case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only. In the instant case, the plaintiff has filed his suit on the basis of the agreement dated 27th of April, 1989 The defendants in their written statement raised objections concerning jurisdiction of courts at Garhshankar on the basis of clause 18 of the said agreement whereby any dispute arising out of the agreement between the parties was to be adjudicated by competent courts at Chandigarh, However, the plaintiff does not admit that the Civil Courts-at Chandigarh had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter to decide any such dispute between the parties. It was specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that the jurisdiction of the courts at" Garhshankar has not been specifically ousted according to the recital in the said agreement. In such a situation, it is quite obvious that in order to decide the question of jurisdiction both the parties would be required to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The dispute concerning jurisdiction, would not merely constitute a pure question of law. Rather in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, such a dispute would be a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the said issue cannot be treated as a preliminary issue.
4. I find support in my view by Single Bench Authority of this Court in Surinder Pal Singh v. Pawan Vir Kaur, 1989 P. L. J. 512. Reliance therein was placed on the authority in case S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dhillon, (1964) 66 P.L.R. 115 (S.C.) In the said authority the Apex Court while dealing with unamended provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. observed that the jurisdiction to try issues of law, apart from issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone. This view was followed by in two Single Bench authorities of this court in M/s. Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Mohinder Kumar Jain, 1979 P. L.J. 194. and Smt. Ram Kali and Anr. v. Sohan Lal, A.I.R. 1985 Punj.& Hary. 124.
5. It was further observed in that even if a case falling within the exception had been made out, it was discretionary for the trail Court to treat the issues as a preliminary issue or decline to do so. Reliance in this regard was placed on the authority in Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishan Chandra, A.I.R. 1979 Patna 34. In the said authority it was held that where the trial Court refuses to treat and decide any issue of law, even on the points referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) as a preliminary issue before taking up the other issues, it commits no error touching jurisdiction of the Court.
6. Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court in the present case does not suffer from any illegality Nor the trial court had committed any error touching its jurisdiction in declining to treat the issue relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. This petition is thus without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed The learned trial court is however directed to dispose of this suit expeditiously preferably within four months by giving short adjournments if necessary. However, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for disposal of the petition shall in any manner be construed to affect the rights of the parties on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.