Gauhati High Court
Khya Changrang vs State Bank Of India on 27 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010002382025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/9/2025
KHYA CHANGRANG
S/O KHEBRING PAO, R/O KREMA PAO, P.O.-SAWA, P.S.- CHAYANG TAJO,
DIST-EAST KAMENG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN-790102
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTES UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT STATE BANK BHAVAN,
MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-
400021, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, P.O.- ASSAM
SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI-781006 AND HAVING BRANCHES ALL OVER
INDIA INCLUDING A BRANCH AT SEPPA CALLED SEPPA BRANCH, AT
SEPPA, DIST-EAST KAMENG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH-790104 AND WITH
ITS LOAN SANCTIONING AUTHORITY OFFICE UNDER THE NAME AND
STYLE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,
SITUATED AT MISSION CHARIALI, TEZPUR, PIN-784001, DIST- SONITPUR,
ASSAM HAVING VAST TERRITORIAL AND OVERALL SUPERVISORY
JURISDICTION SPREADING FROM WESTERN SIDE MANGALDOI,
KHARUPETIA TO EASTERN SIDE BISWANTH CHARIALI, BEHALI, BALIJAN
IN ASSAM, BHALUKPONG, KALAKTANG, RUPA, TENGAVALLEY, SEPPA,
BOMDILLA, DIRANG, TAWANG IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH BEING
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICER
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAHU, MS A ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : B SAHA,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 27.08.2025
Heard Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. J. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam in Title Suit No. 35/2021.
3. The petitioner being the defendant filed an application before the Trial
Court for framing a preliminary issue because the petitioner questioned the
territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the suit.
4. The Trial Court refused the said prayer.
5. Mr. Sahu has submitted that instead of framing the preliminary issue, the
Trial court has already traversed into the pleadings and decided that preliminary
issue.
6. Mr. Baruah, on the other hand, submits that the issue raised by the
defendant is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the Trial Court should
decide the issue at the end of the trial, after examination of witnesses.
7. Mr. Sahu has relied upon the judgment of this Court that was delivered in
National Airport Authority Vs. Paradise Hotel & Restaurant reported in
(2000) 2 GLT 27.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both
sides.
9. This Court is of the opinion that since this Court had already held that the
issue raised by the present petitioner, who is the defendant before the Trial
Page No.# 3/3
court, is a mixed question of law. Therefore, it should be decided along with
other issues at the time of trial of the suit.
10. In this case, the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 makes it amply clear that such an issue relating to jurisdiction,
which involves not only a question of law, but also a question of fact, cannot be
decided as a preliminary issue.
11. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to decide the issue at the end of trial.
With the aforesaid direction, this revision petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
