[2023:RJ-JD:31604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 154/2019
1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Through Managing Director, Human Resources Division, Hdfc Bank House, IInd Floor, Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013
2. Deputy Vice President, Hdfc Bank Limited, B-54, Sidhi Vinayak Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001
3. Hdfc Bank Limited, Through Bank Manager, Near Dharmstup, Puranisadak, Churu
----Petitioners Versus Rajesh Joshi S/o Shree Devidutt, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Joshi, R/o Village Dulrasar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu Presently Senior Manager, Hdfc Bank, Branch - Churu (Rajasthan)
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Saraswat HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 26/09/2023
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Suit No.40/2018 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 r.w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant Bank had been rejected.
2. The ground raised by the defendant Bank was that there was a condition in the agreement entered into between the parties that in case any dispute arises out of the service conditions, the Mumbai Court will have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:33:26 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31604] (2 of 3) [CR-154/2019] present dispute could not be entertained by any Court except at Mumbai.
3. The ground as raised by the defendant has been rejected by the learned Court below relying upon the judgment of this Court in Save the Children Fund U.K. and Ors. vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma and Ors., 2006 (2) RLW 1433. The Court, while rejecting the application, held that the issue, if any, regarding jurisdiction or maintainability of the suit before the Court, could only be decided by framing an issue qua the same, the same being a mixed question of law and fact.
4. So far as the reason for rejection as given by the learned Court below is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that the same does not deserve any interference for the following reasons:
(i) To decide the issue whether any Court, which otherwise does not have jurisdiction, can be granted exclusive jurisdiction by consent of the parties, the Court would definitely be required to go into the fact as to whether any cause of action arose at Mumbai by virtue of which it could have been granted the exclusive jurisdiction. The said fact could not have been considered/decided by the learned Court below by a bare reading of the plaint and hence, as rightly held by the Court below, the same could have been decided only after an issue been framed.
(ii) A bare reading of the plaint reflects that the plaintiff was appointed at Churu, worked at Churu and was terminated by the Bank at Churu. Therefore, the issue whether any cause of action arose at Churu and whether the suit would be (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:33:26 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31604] (3 of 3) [CR-154/2019] maintainable at Churu despite the clause of exclusive jurisdiction to the Court at Mumbai, could not have been decided by a bare reading of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
(iii) Even otherwise, even if the Court reaches to a conclusion that it does not have the jurisdiction to try a suit, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Court would be required to return the plaint in terms of order VII Rule 10, CPC to be filed before the proper Court.
5. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned in the present revision petition and hence the present revision petition is dismissed.
6. The stay petition as well as all the pending applications also stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J 444-Sachin/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:33:26 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)