Municipal Council Nangal Through Its ... vs The Buraj Co-Operative Labour ... on 23 July, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Municipal Council Nangal Through Its ... vs The Buraj Co-Operative Labour ... on 23 July, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

C.R.No.3255 of 2012 (O&M)                                       -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH
                                C.R.No.3255 of 2012 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision.23.07.2012

Municipal Council Nangal through its Executive Officer, Municipal Council
Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar and another
                                                      ....Petitioners
                                Versus

The Buraj Co-operative Labour Construction Society Ltd. through its
President Sukhdev Singh s/o Shri Surinder Singh r/o village Ghattiwal,
Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar

                                                     .....Respondent
Present:      Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment ? No
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
                                        -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The revision is against dismissal of an application to take the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The contention, which was sought to be raised in the written statement that there was a clause for arbitration in his agreement and therefore, the institution of suit before the Civil Court is not justified. The trial Court dismissed the application all the same on account of the fact that the trial had commenced and that the application had been delayed and therefore, the issue relating to want of jurisdiction could not be taken up.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Order 14 Rule 5 allows a Court to frame or modify the issue already framed at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, the mere delay in moving an application for taking up preliminary issue ought not to have been taken C.R.No.3255 of 2012 (O&M) -2- up against him. While this may be a general principle that a Court will have a jurisdiction to frame additional issue at any point of time, if the objection had been with reference to the maintainability of suit and for adjudication at the threshold, the fact that the proceedings have commenced itself will be a ground not to allow for taking up the application as a preliminary issue. Further the matter relating to jurisdiction in a situation where parties have bound themselves by an arbitrary agreement must be taken up immediately at or before framing all issues. The objection regarding the maintainability of the suit by virtue of arbitral clause ought to have been an issue, which the defendant with sufficient alacrity must have taken even at the time of framing of issues and before the trial progressed. It has been held in several cases that even a mere demand before the Court for filing written statement could be taken as circumstance for waiver of jurisdiction. In this case after written statement was filed if the defendant had allowed for even the commencement of the trial, it must be taken that the defendant had waived the objection regarding jurisdiction on account of a clause for arbitration.

3. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Court below is justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same in revision. The revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 23, 2012 Pankaj*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court