Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs Baldev Singh on 2 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: AIR1987P&H104, AIR 1987 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 104, 1986 PUNJ LJ 290, 1986 HRR 175, ILR (1986) 1 PUNJHAR 398, (1986) 2 LANDLR 77, 1986 REV LR 57, (1986) 89 (1) PUN LR 127, (1986) 1 CURCC 876, (1986) ILR 1 P&H 398
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge II Class, Jalandhar dt. 5-9-1985 allowing the defendant to amend the written statement and incorporate therein that the cause of action had arisen in village Kala Singha, situated in District Kapurthala and therefore, the Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,500/- as principal and interest on the basis of a pronote. The suit was contested by the defendant who denied the execution of the pronote and the receipt. He did not raise any objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Jalandhar. The Court framed issues in the case and recorded evidence of the parties. 24-8-1985 was fixed for arguments when the defendant made an application for amendment of the written statement incorporating therein that the cause of action had arisen at village Kala Singha, District Kapurthala and therefore, the Civil Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The amendment application was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Consequently, the plaintiff has come up in revision petition to this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant did not take any objection in the written statement regarding the jurisdiction of the Court at Jalandhar. On the other hand, he specifically admitted therein that the Civil Court at Jalandhar had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Thereafter the issues were framed and evidence was concluded by the parties. In these circumstances, he should not have been allowed to amend the written statement at that late stage.
4. I find force in the submission of Shri Jhanji. Sub-section (1) of S. 21 of Civil P.C. provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. It is evident from a reading of the sub-section that an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Court should be raised before the settlement of the issues and not thereafter. Even if a plea regarding jurisdiction has been taken in the written statement, but it is not pressed at the time of settlement of the issues, normally it is deemed to be waived and the defendant cannot be allowed to raise the objection thereafter. However, in an exceptional case he may be allowed to take the objection if he shows that failure of justice would be caused if he was not allowed to raise the objection. It is a salutary provision and has been enacted so that the defendant by raising the objection at a late stage may, not be able to delay the decision of the case. Though the section applies to the appeals and revisions, but the principle enunciated therein is also applicable to the suits. In the abovesaid view, 1 am fortified by the observations of the Madras High Court in Nanak Chand v. T. T. Elect. Supply, AIR 1975 Mad 103. It was observed by the Division Such therein that the section speaks of a rule of prudence as well as a rule of guidance. The guidelines make it imperative that such an objection has to be raised at the earliest opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement. If by an act of omission or commission the defendant having raised the plea as to jurisdiction does not even ask for trial of the issue on such question as a preliminary issue and allows the trial to go on in the usual course on all the issues, he should be deemed in such circumstances to have waived his objection as to jurisdiction. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations.
5. It is true that the written statement can be allowed to be amended at a late stage. However, an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court cannot be allowed to be raised by way of amendment of the written statement at a late stage. In the present case, the respondent has also not been able to show any prejudice to him or failure of justice on account of the trial of the case having been held in the Court at Jalandhar.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I accept the revision petition with costs and set aside the order of the subordinate Court. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-.
7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-12-1985.
8. Revision allowed.