Telangana High Court
Vsl Mining Company Private Limited vs Sathavahana Ispat Limited on 9 April, 2021
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
Item No.14
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
C.R.P.No.133 of 2019
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The petitioner (defendant in C.O.S.No.139 of 2017 filed by the respondent/plaintiff) is aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby, an application moved by it (I.A.No.367 of 2018) under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying inter alia to try the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, has been dismissed and the learned trial court has held that it is vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of money instituted by the respondent/plaintiff.
2. We may note that vide order dated 30.01.2019, proceedings in the suit were stayed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits before us that after passing of the impugned order on 31.10.2018, the learned trial court had framed four issues on merits. He submits that by the impugned order, the learned trial court has dismissed the application moved by the petitioner/defendant rejecting its plea that the courts in Hyderabad are not vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the CRP.No.133 of 2019 Page 1 of 3 suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, on the ground that the registered office of the petitioner/defendant company is situated in Karnataka. It is stated that having regard to the pleas taken by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned trial court that invoices were issued on the petitioner/defendant at Hyderabad that contained a clause stating that the courts in Hyderabad would be vested with jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties and further, during the pendency of the suit, an agreement was entered into between the parties in Hyderabad, which was not acted upon, the aforesaid issue ought not to have been decided on the basis of arguments, if mixed questions of facts and law have arisen which would have required a regular trial. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the learned trial court be directed to frame an issue on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction besides the issues already framed and the suit be set down for trial.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff states that he has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion only for the reason that the suit instituted by his client has remained stalled for almost two and a half years, on account of the stay order operating in the present proceedings.
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 is quashed and set aside. As the parties are going to appear before the learned trial court on 12.04.2021, the learned trial court is requested to frame an additional CRP.No.133 of 2019 Page 2 of 3 issue on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, the same being a mixed question of facts and law and afford an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue as well besides the issues already framed. The schedule of trial shall be set down by the learned trial court, so that the suit can proceed further.
6. The present petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 09.04.2021 JSU/pln CRP.No.133 of 2019 Page 3 of 3