Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Exl Careers And Anr vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd on 13 March, 2018

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

CR No.1602 of 2018                                                 -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
119
                                                CR No.1602 of 2018
                                                Date of decision: 13.03.2018


M/s Exl Careers and another                                 ...... Petitioners

                                      Versus

Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.                       ...... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL


Present:-    Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

                                      *****
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL)

By an order dated 05.09.2017, this Court had allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and directed the Court to return the file in accordance with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure finding that the Court at Gurugram was not having any territorial jurisdiction. Learned Court in compliance with the order has directed the parties to appear before the Transferee Court on 12.03.2018 and the file of the case has been forwarded to a competent Court of jurisdiction i.e. Transferee Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once the file is transferred, the evidence which has already been recorded would be read. He submits that under Order 7, Rule 10 and 10-A, only plaint can be returned and there has to be de-novo trial.

This Court has considered the submission, however, do not find any substance therein. During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties completed their pleadings and got recorded their evidence. The 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:16:36 ::: CR No.1602 of 2018 -2- aforesaid pleadings and evidence recorded cannot be set at naught only because the suit itself has been transferred to the Transferee Court after finding that the Court at Delhi has the exclusive jurisdiction in view of the agreement between the parties.

In view thereof, there is no scope for interference with the order passed by the Court.

Revision petition is dismissed.




                                                     ( ANIL KSHETARPAL )
13.03.2018                                                  JUDGE
Dinesh Bansal

                Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes / No

                Whether Reportable                   Yes / No




                                            2 of 2
                      ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:16:37 :::