Delhi High Court
Kanta Rani & Others vs Singnora Wooven Staff Pvt. Ltd. on 25 May, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 25.05.2011
+ R.S.A.No. 50/2010
KANTA RANI & OTHERS ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Alok Kumar and
Mr. Manish Aggarwal,
Advocate.
Versus
SINGNORA WOOVEN STAFF PVT. LTD. ..........Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
12.12.2009 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge
dated 20.09.2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Kanta
Rani seeking recovery of `71,965.08 had been dismissed.
2 The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of the aforenoted
amount. The factual matrix of the case is not necessary for
disposing of this appeal.
3 This is a second appeal. It had been admitted and on
23.03.2011, the following substantial question of law was
formulated:-
"Whether the finding in the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2009 endorsing
the finding of the trial judge thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the
court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit and further
adjudicating on the merits of the claim of the parties was a perverse finding? If
so, its effect?"
4 Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that both
the two fact finding courts have returned a positive fact finding on
issue No. 4 that the Delhi Courts did not have the territorial
jurisdiction to decide the suit; nevertheless it had decided the
case on its merits. This submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is forceful and is borne out from the Record. Six issues
had been framed. Issue No. 4 is related to territorial jurisdiction
and reads as follows:-
"Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit?"
5 The trial Court after examination of documentary and oral
evidence had returned a positive fact finding that the plaint is
liable to be rejected on the ground that Delhi courts did not have
the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Nevertheless, it
has proceeded to deal with the matter. The impugned judgment
had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge. It held that the Delhi
Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
suit; nevertheless it had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge on
merits and had dismissed the suit.
6 This finding is perversity and calls for an interference.
7 In (2001) 10 SCC 630 Auto Engineering Works Vs. Bansal
Trading Company & Others, the court while dealing with similar
plea had noted as follows:-
"4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the
trial court fell in error in not directing the return of the plaint to the appellant
for presentation to the proper forum and the High Court also likewise fell in the
same error. The terms of Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code are
clear and specific. After having found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the plaint, the trial court ought to have returned the plaint to the
appellant for presentation to the proper forum. We, therefore, set aside the
order of the trial court to the extent it refused to return the plaint to the
appellant for presentation to the proper forum and direct that the plaint shall
be returned to the appellant for its presentation to the proper forum. After the
plaint is so presented to the court having jurisdiction, the case shall be decided
by the trial court in accordance with law on its own merits."
8 In 54 (1994) DLT 30 Janta Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab
Chemi Plants Ltd., a Bench of this Court had noted that where the
court has drawn a conclusion that it does not have the territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the only course available to
him was to return the plaint and not to dismiss the suit. Relevant
extract reads as follows:-
"The only proper course for him, after holding that the court had no territorial
jurisdiction, was to return the plaint and not to dismiss the suit of the appellant.
the decree sheet could not have been prepared on the basis of the law as cited
in this regard. The trial Judge has grossly erred in law in disposing of the suit of
the plaintiff and passing a decree, when law did not empower him to do so."
9 The finding in the impugned judgment endorsing the finding
of the trial Judge on the merits of the case when it had returned a
positive finding that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction is a
perversity. This is a fit case for remand.
10 Matter is accordingly remanded back to the District &
Sessions Judge for 31.05.2011 at 10:30 AM to mark it to the
concerned Civil Judge who shall follow the procedure as contained
in Order 7 Rule 10 & Rule 10 A of the Code.
11 Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 25, 2011
a
