Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. S. Chandra Sekhar Rao vs Vst Constructions And Ors. on 7 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)ALD840, AIR 2005 (NOC) 88 (AP), 2004 A I H C 4098 (2004) 4 ANDHLD 840, (2004) 4 ANDHLD 840
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This Tr. Civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Hyderabad seeking transfer of the suit to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Secunderabad.
2. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,59,000/- on the strength of various transactions. The second defendant filed written statement disputing the various assertions of the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by the second defendant is that several transactions referred to in the suit have taken place at Tarnaka, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Secunderabad and as such the Court, in which the suit is pending, does not have the territorial jurisdiction. The trial of the suit is yet to commence.
3. Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the specific assertion on behalf of the principal contesting defendant as regards the territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner seeks transfer of suit to a Court, the territorial jurisdiction of which is beyond any pale of controversy. He also submits that such a course of action is permissible in view of specific provisions contained in Sub-Section 5 of Section 24 C.P.C.
4. Sri K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the suit is presented in the Court where it is pending now, the question of transferring it on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction would, in fact, be a contradiction in terms. He submits that the suit was presented in the Court at Hyderabad on the specific plea that it had territorial jurisdiction and as long as the plaint is not amended suitably, it cannot be permitted to be transferred. He also contends that if the petitioner is accepting the plea of the defendants as to the territorial jurisdiction, it is always open for the trial Court to return the plaint, in exercise of power under Rule 10 of Order 7 C.P.C.
5. The suit pending on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is sought to be transferred to a Court of equivalent jurisdiction in Secunderabad. The suit was filed on the basis of various transactions which took place between the parties. In the relevant portion of the plaint, the petitioner asserted that the Court where the suit is presented has territorial jurisdiction. In para 7 of the written statement filed by the second defendant, it is pleaded that the alleged transactions have taken place at Secunderabad and in that view of the matter the Court where the suit is filed does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
6. Of the three categories of jurisdictions viz. territorial, pecuniary and the one relating to subject matter, Sections 16 to 20 C.P.C. stipulate the factors to decide the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, for the purpose of filing a suit. Under Section 21 C.P.C., any objection as to territorial jurisdiction, is required to be taken at the earliest opportunity. It is, obviously, in exercise of this right that the second defendant raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed, by raising a specific plea in the written statement
7. Whenever a doubt as to territorial jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit arises, two courses are open for the Court. Firstly, it can return the plaint to be presented in an appropriate Court. The stage of the suit for having recourse to this step is immaterial. The plaint can be returned at any stage (see Rule 10 of order VII C.P.C.). This, however, is a step to be taken by the Court on its own accord and not at the request of parties. The second course of action is to frame an issue as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, if the parties raise an objection touching on this aspect. The Court would be competent to pronounce on this aspect even where no issue is framed, if evidence is adduced by the parties touching on it. In either case, the pronouncement on this aspect, at the end of the trial, does not by itself result in negation of the entire claim in the suit. The plaintiff may still present the plaint in the appropriate Court.
8. From the point of view of the plaintiff in a suit, how-so-ever confident he may have been, as to the existence of territorial jurisdiction in a particular Court, once he realizes that there exists a strong doubt about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain or try the suit, he can take appropriate steps to get it transferred to a Court which undoubtedly holds territorial jurisdiction. For this purpose, he can neither compel the Court to return the plaint under Rule 10 of Order VII C.P.C, nor does he need to wait till the suit is finally decided and a pronouncement is made on this aspect. It is for this reason that Section 24 C.P.C. has been suitably amended by incorporating Sub-section 5, providing for transfer of proceedings from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 C.P.C.
9. Further, Section 24 C.P.C. does not restrict the grounds on which the proceedings can be transferred from one Court to another. The grounds can range from the convenience of parties, to ensuring that the Courts possess appropriate jurisdiction to try the matte Rs. While convenience or hardship to the parties is always subjective in approach, the latter ground, namely, ensuring adjudication of the matters, by Courts possessing requisite jurisdiction, is basically objective in nature. Acceding to the request of the petitioner, in this case, would at the most ensure that the doubt as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is pending is removed. The defendant cannot be said to have suffered any detriment in such an event. It is not as if the plea as to absence of territorial jurisdiction is so fatal as to result in rejection of entire claim if it was otherwise tenable in law.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the Tr. Civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and O.S. No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is transferred to the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.