Delhi High Court
Sh. Ramesh Mittal & Ors. vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors. on 9 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.258/2001
% 9th February, 2011
SH. RAMESH MITTAL & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. S C Singhal and Mr. Sanja
Choudhary, Advocate
VERSUS
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree
dated 14.2.2000 whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for recovery of the
rent of the godown let out to the respondent no.4 was dismissed.
2. The trial court has dismissed the suit both on merits and also by arriving
at a finding that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction. The relevant findings
with respect to territorial jurisdiction is contained in paras 17 and 18 of the
RFA No.258/2001 Page 1 of 3
impugned judgment and decree which read as under :
"17. It is not disputed that the original lease agreement in respect
of godown in question was executed with defendant no.3 at
Kurukshetra and the said godown is situated at Ladwa in District
Kurukshetra (Haryana) and the payment of rent/hire charges was
received at Kurukshetra by the plaintiff. It was an essential pre-
requisite to execute fresh lease agreement by plaintiffs before
defendant no.3 or 4 at Kurukshetra or Chandigarh to enable them to
claim difference of rent/hire charges for the godown. No cause of
action accrued to plaintiffs at Delhi. Simply because, the
correspondence with the plaintiffs at Delhi address after the
dehiring of godown or because the revised hire charges were
sanctioned by the Head Office or because the registered Head
Office is situated in Delhi, it cannot be said that Delhi Courts have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In taking this
view, I draw support from judgment reported in AIR 1992 Supreme
Court 1514 wherein, it has been held that the Court at a place
where the corporation is having subordinate office would have the
jurisdiction as the cause of action arose there and the parties
cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court where the corporation has its
principal office.
18. I have carefully gone through the judgment reported I
87(2000) Delhi Law Times 348 and I find that the same is
distinguishable on facts as in the above-cited case, letter of
guarantee was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi
Courts and so it was held that a part of cause of action arose in
Delhi. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not performed any
part of contract at Delhi and in judgment reported in AIR 1992
Supreme Court 1514, it has been clearly held that parties cannot
confer jurisdiction on a court simply because where corporation has
its principal office there and therefore, Delhi Courts do not have the
territorial jurisdiction simply because the registered Head Office of
the defendants is at Delhi. I am of the considered opinion that no
part of cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs at Delhi. In view of
this, I hold that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided against
the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that courts at Delhi would have
no jurisdiction but states that a court which has no jurisdiction could not have
decided the case on merits but ought to have simply returned the plaint
RFA No.258/2001 Page 2 of 3
without giving the findings on merits.
4. Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is very clear that once the court is found to lack
jurisdiction the plaint has to be returned for filing in the court of appropriate
territorial jurisdiction and the court which does not have territorial jurisdiction,
since there is lack of jurisdiction, cannot decide the issues on merits.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed to the extent it challenges the
findings with respect to issue no.4 where it is held that the court has no
territorial jurisdiction, however the appeal is accepted by which challenge is
laid to the case decided on merits inasmuch as a court which lacks jurisdiction
could not have disposed of the case on merits.
6. The plaint, is therefore returned to the appellant/plaintiff for being filed in
the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction, if so advised. Appellant to
appear before the Districts and Sessions Judge on 14.3.2011 for return of the
plaint in accordance with law. Trial court record be sent back.
February 09, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
vld
