Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badami Lal Sahu vs Bhola Prasad Sahu on 17 September, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17209/2019 Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others Gwalior, Dated :17/09/2019 Shri B.D. Jain, Advocate for petitioner.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 28/8/2019 he was directed to bring on record the memo of Second Appeal No.751/2014, which finds reference in the impugned order of Board of Revenue, vide P/1 dated 18/4/2019, however, in spite of best efforts, he could not contact with the petitioner.
It is submitted that a part of cause of action has also arisen at Chhindwara, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Principle Seat of this Court at Jabalpur. Thus, it is prayed that this petition may be transferred to Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 has held as under :
''27. When an order, however, is passed by a court or tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17209/2019 Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority.''
28. XXXXXXX
29. XXXXXXX ''Forum conveniens -
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.[See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd., S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India.]'' Furthermore, in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, Section 54 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956, Clause 27 and 28 of the Letters Patent and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the High Court of M.P. has made rules regulating practice and procedure of the High Court known as Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules & Orders (hereinafter referred to as "the High Court Rules"). Chapter III of the High Court Rules deal with territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat and the Benches and Rule 4 thereof provides as under:-
"4. Where a bench, in the Principal Seat at Jabalpur or 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17209/2019 Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others the Benches at Indore or Gwalior, on an objection taken by the Registry or otherwise, is of the opinion that a main case posted before it, had arisen from a revenue district falling within the territorial jurisdiction of some other Bench or the Principal Seat, it may record its opinion and return the main case for its presentation at proper place for orders, after retaining one complete set of the main case."
Therefore, if a Bench either sitting at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur or Bench at Indore or Gwalior is of the opinion that the main case had arisen from the revenue district falling within the territorial jurisdiction of some other Bench or the Principal Seat, as the case may be, it may record its opinion and return the main case for presentation at proper place for orders etc. This Court in the case of Smt. Puspa Bai and Others vs. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Moti Mahal, Gwalior and Others, reported in (2016) 2 RN 113 has held as under:-
''Therefore, in the light of the provisions under Rule 4 of the High Court Rules based on the concept of forum conveniens also, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition at Gwalior Bench of the High Court of M.P. Is not maintainable. In view of the concept, meaning and dimensions of cause of action or part of cause of action, as propounded in catena of Supreme Court judgments reviewed in the case of Alchemist (supra) and provisions contained in Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner viz. K.P. Govil v. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalya, Jabalpur and another, 1987 JLJ 341, Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (2010) 1 SCC 457, Gajendra Singh 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17209/2019 Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others Arya and another vs. State of M.P. and others, 2000 (2) MPLJ 50, G.S.Gyani and Company, Bhopal vs. Oriental Electric and Engineering Co., Calcutta and another, 2006 (2) MPLJ 530, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation, Bhopal v. Bhojraj Ghanshyamdas and another, 1991 RN 2 are distinguishable on facts and of no assistance to the petitioner. In no way, these decisions are in conflict with law laid down in the case of Alchemist (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, petitioner is set at liberty to file appropriate writ petition or any other proceedings falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of M.P. At Principal Seat Jabalpur.'' Moreover, the concept of forum conveniens or forum non- conveniens also assumes importance in the midst of the controversy involved and, therefore, the same is also required to be dealt with. The Black's Law Dictionary defines forum conveniens as follows:-
"The Court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses."
Thus, it is clear that considering the facts and circumstances of a given case, the High Court, may refuse to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of Forum Conveniens, specifically when the petitioner is seeking direction against an authority functioning with the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court.
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.17209/2019 Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others The present petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the order has been passed by the Board of Revenue, which is situated at Gwalior, however, according to the petitioner himself, it is more convenient to the petitioner to contest this case at Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur. Accordingly, applying the principle of forum convenience, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.09.20 12:41:09 +05'30'